Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Rhodesian University College (African Students)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he is aware that it is the policy of the new Rhodesian University College to admit African students either to mixed classes or to parallel classes; and whether he will take action to avoid the segregation on the latter lines.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): This will be a matter for decision by the governing body of the college. Neither the college nor its governing body is yet in existence. The Inaugural Board in Rhodesia, however, has already resolved that for admission to the university
educational attainments and good character alone will be taken into consideration",
and the delegation, which recently visited London for discussions with the Inter-University Council, indicated that this very sound principle will generally govern the administration of the institution.
May I remind the hon. Member, also, of the opinion held by the present Prime Minister of the Federation, about which the House was informed on 6th May, that undergraduates of any race should share the same teachers and undertake the same courses on a basis of academic equality.

Mr. Johnson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that many hon. Members of this House, including the Secretary of State for the Colonies himself, used the multi-racial policy of this new University College as an argument

for Federation? Is he aware that on page 2 of "Information for Intending Candidates" to this new college it states:
Members of staff will be called upon to lecture to African students either in mixed classes or in parallel classes.
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Foster: That document was issued without authority and has been withdrawn. In future, the appointments will be carried out through the Inter-University Council in the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While recognising with a University with this independence that this must be a matter for them to decide, may I ask whether the Government are taking steps to convey to them the pledges given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter recently?

Mr. Foster: There is no need to convey them. They are well aware of them.

Rhodesia—South-West Africa Railway Link

Mrs. White: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to what extent the Governments of Southern Rhodesia and Bechuanaland or the Colonial Development Corporation will be associated with the private financiers who are to build the railway connecting Rhodesia and Bechuanaland with South-West Africa.

Mr. J. Foster: I understand that a commercial engineering concern is investigating the possibility of linking the Rhodesian and South-West African railway systems, but I have seen no firm plans. The interest of local Governments in any such project if it matured is obvious, but the question of their association with this particular proposal is premature. In the case of the Colonial Development Corporation it would be for the Corporation's Board to consider the matter in the first instance.

Mrs. White: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that, if this plan does come to fruition, public representation of some kind will be provided so that the public interest can be fully safeguarded?

Mr. Foster: The Government will look after the public interest.

Mrs. White: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what official information has been given to the African, European or Joint Advisory Councils in Bechuanaland concerning the proposed railway link with South-West Africa.

Mr. J. Foster: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to her other Question on this subject. No proposals have so far emerged which would justify reference to these Councils.

Mrs. White: If they should, can we also be assured that there will be consultation with the inhabitants of Bechuanaland about something which so closely affects their interest?

Mr. Foster: On all matters which affcet their interest the Councils are consulted.

Bechuana (Local Government Studies)

Mrs. White: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will give particulars of the official visit of chiefs and others from Bechuanaland to study forms of government in other parts of Africa.

Mr. J. Foster: Arrangements for a tour by a party of Bechuana to study local government development in other African territories are under consideration. When a programme has been settled, I will gladly let the hon. Member have details.

Emigration

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations have been made to the Australian Government in respect of the housing and treatment of British emigrants; and if present conditions in this respect are now satisfactory.

Mr. J. Foster: No such representations have been made and I have no reason to suppose that present conditions are unsatisfactory.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that at one time there were many complaints, some of them, apparently, of substance? Do I understand that he has had no consultations with the Australian representatives on this matter? What

arrangements are made to see that emigrants from this country have the accommodation and treatment that they require?

Mr. Foster: That is a large question. The Australian Government instituted an independent inquiry. As the hon. Member is aware, the complaints affected only a small minority of what was itself a small minority—27,000 of the total of 350,000 British migrants under the assisted passages scheme. The Committee's inquiries showed as was accepted by the Australian Government, that, by and large, there was no ground for these complaints. When Mr. Holt was over here I had the opportunity of speaking to him informally about migration and the various arrangements in the various States. I satisfied myself that proper arrangements are made for informing British migrants about the facts in Australia; before they go, a pamphlet is issued to them. There was no ground for these complaints, which, it must be admitted, were fostered by the Communists.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I have recently had letters from Australia from sons of constituents stating that earlier this year a considerable number of British immigrants were evicted from some of the hostels? Will the Minister make further inquiries?

Mr. Foster: A few have been evicted, but that was on the ground that they refused to pay the tariffs, which the Committee found were fair in comparison with the general run of Australian tariffs. If the hon. Member would like to talk to me about it at any time, I should be pleased to give him other facts.

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to emigration to the Dominions of Canada, Australia and South Africa; and what was the number of emigrants to, and immigrants from, these Dominions in 1951 and 1952, respectively.

Mr. J. Foster: I would invite the hon. Member's attention to the statement which I made on 21st April, 1952. This statement still holds good.
As the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Figures are only available of immigrants going by sea.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Will he confirm that there is no restriction now on free emigration or on the number of emigrants who want to go to two, at least, of these territories?

Mr. Foster: I am not certain, but I believe that to be the case.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have the Government yet decided to join the inter-governmental committee on European migration, to which Australia and Canada belong and in which they take a great interest?

Mr. Foster: I am not in a position to say that.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: In advising those who are proposing to emigrate to any of these territories, will the Minister provide full information about the policy of apartheid, which, it is stated, is being put forward by responsible or irresponsible political leaders in the Central African Federation?

Mr. Foster: That is nothing to do with the Question. Information is given to migrants about conditions in the country and the offices of the Ministry of Labour and of the High Commissioner are at the disposal of emigrants.

Following are the figures:


MIGRANTS OF COMMONWEALTH CITIZENSHIP TRAVELLING DIRECT BY SEA BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND CANADA, AUSTRALIA AND SOUTH AFRICA


—
Outward
Inward
Net Movement


Canada:





1951
27,544
5,024
22,520 outward


1952
37,500
7,500
30,000 outward


Australia:





1951
56,724
9,988
46,736 outward


1952
51,900
10,700
41,200 outward


South Africa:





1951
6,975
4,665
2,310 outward


1952
8,600
4,200
4,400 outward

Atom Bomb Experiments (Australian Representations)

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he received from the Government of the Dominion of Australia with reference to the recent arrangements for atom bomb experiments within the territory of the Dominion; and what action has been taken.

Mr. J. Foster: None, Sir. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. Hale: Is it not rather remarkable, in these circumstances, that when Ministers of the Australian Government make public complaints about the arrangements, they do not even waste time to send them to the hon. and learned Gentleman? Will he explain why, when Questions are put down to his Department, they are passed to the Minister of Supply? Is not the cause of this trouble not that it is fostered by the Communists but that some things are being communised by the Fosters?

Central African Federation (Apartheid)

Mr. Hale: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on recent events in the area of the Central African Federation including the emergence of a party committed to a policy of apartheid.

Mr. J. Foster: For a reply to the general part of his Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement on progress in establishing the Federation which I made on 22nd October. It would not be proper for me to comment on the policies of any of the parties contesting the forthcoming elections.

Mr. Hale: Would it not? Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind that it is the policy of the Government, apparently, to take political action where extremist parties of one kind arise, and is there not just as much menace from Fascism as from Communism? Is not a situation arising, from the speeches made yesterday, when a serious position is developing in Northern Rhodesia and one of a kind which would have prevented us giving Federation had it arisen 12 months ago?

Mr. Foster: The parallel does not obtain.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that the policy now being advocated by the Confederate Party is a complete breach of all the pledges made in the House when we discussed Federation, are the Government considering what action they will take in the event of that party winning power?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that all parties in this country agree that Central African Federation would only be justified if the policy of racial partnership became a reality?

Mr. Foster: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it, then, the view of the Government that although it was pledged and agreed here that the only policy we would support in Central Africa was one of partnership, the Government do not propose to say anything about the policies now being advocated by this party?

Mr. Foster: No, Sir. The election programme of a party in an independent country must be for that country, and not for Her Majesty's Government, to comment upon.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Wool Glossary (Violations)

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many prosecutions have been made by his Department under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1953, for violations of the Wool Glossary.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): None, Sir. I should, I think, explain that the definitions in the Wool Glossary are not statutory; but, if they are wrongly applied, that may constitute an infringement of the Merchandise Marks Acts.

Mrs. Castle: While I appreciate that the resignation of the Government is imminent, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before he surrenders his seal of office, he can say what advice should be given to housewives so that they can enforce the correct descriptions of wool content cloth given in the Glossary?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The advice that should be given is that the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts and not for me.

Rayon Cloths (Marking)

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with marking rayon cloths which satisfy tests of shrink resistance and colour fastness, as promised in his speech to the House of 13th March, 1952.

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British Standards Institution have refused to give their quality mark to the rayon standards recently published; and if, in view of his statement to the House that, following tests, such cloths would be marked, he will re-examine the position.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The British Standards Institution published in September a group of three standards dealing with finishing properties—colour fastness and shrink resistance—of woven rayon dress and lingerie fabrics. These standards provide for identification of fabrics complying with the specifications by means of a prescribed statement on accompanying invoices or other similar documents. The industry made no request for the use of the Institution certification mark and no question of refusal by the Institution therefore arises.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman again advise housewives how these standards can be enforced and what redress they have if they are not enforced?

Mr. Thorneycroft: They can, of course, ask for them; but on the interpretation of the Merchandise Marks Acts I do not think it is proper for me to advise. That is a matter for the courts.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend consider advising the Opposition on the subject of colour fastness?

Miss Burton: Is it not the fact that in his speech to the House on 13th March, 1952, the right hon. Gentleman said that these goods would be marked, whereas now, 18 months later, we are told that no marking of these cloths is necessary, but that it will be done on


the invoice? What use does the right hon. Gentleman think an invoice will be to the housewife who goes into a shop?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is true that in March, 1952, I repeated the assurance given to me by the rayon industry that the cloths would be marked. The arrangements they have made have gone a long way to meet what they said then, but it does not include this marking.

Miss Burton: Does the President not agree that the only thing that would be useful to the housewife is that the goods themselves in the shops should carry this marking? Is he prepared to look at the matter again? The invoice is not of the slightest use to the housewife.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I must make it absolutely plain that I am not prepared to introduce compulsory marking in this matter.

Textiles (Standards)

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made with the establishment of a range of British Standards (Utility Series) specifications for cotton cloths and household textiles as promised in his speech to the House of 13th March, 1952.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: A standard for tickings for domestic bedding was published on 6th October. Apart from this, the cotton industry has not found it possible to devise agreed standards based on utility specifications as originally proposed. A statement was issued by the British Standards Institution in July last reviewing progress to that date over the whole field of textiles.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a scandalous betrayal of a promise he most specifically made in this House on 13th March, 1952, when he stated:
In particular, the cotton industry have told me that they propose within a few weeks to deal in this way with the most popular specifications, which cover a wide range of cotton cloths and household textiles up to about 75 per cent. of the trade in those particular types."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1952; Vol. 497, c. 1584.]
Is he aware that it was on that assurance that the House agreed to the withdrawal of the Utility Scheme? Is it not scandalous that the cotton industry and the right hon. Gentleman should in this way betray both the House and the country?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It was, of course, on that assurance by the industry that I made that statement. I quite agree with the hon. Lady that the cotton industry have fallen far short of what they said on that occasion, and I am making representations to them to that effect.

Miss Barton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as from 5th September, 1953, textile and apparel imports into Australia containing less than 95 per cent. but more than 5 per cent. wool, must be labelled so that the percentage of wool is shown together with the names of other fibres in order of dominance; and, in view of the fact that this information is demanded also by the United States of America and South Africa, and has to be supplied by exporters in this country, whether he will recommend similar information being available for British shoppers.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Lady was told in reply to her Question on 14th July last, I am aware of the regulations to which she refers. As regards the second part of the Question, the British Standards Institution has recently issued a glossary of terms, indicating the composition of cloths containing wool. This has been prepared by all the trade interests concerned and the Women's Advisory Committee of the B.S.I., and is likely to be widely adopted. I believe it will prove useful to consumers, and in the circumstances I see no reason for recommending any other system.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that by the next time his turn comes for Oral Questions, I shall have several examples to give him showing that this glossary is not detailed enough? Would he not agree—presumably, he goes shopping sometimes—that it makes a difference whether a material is 90 per cent. wool or 50 per cent., since the glossary does not cover the gap in between? Furthermore, does it make no difference to him whether the material is 15 per cent. or 49 per cent. wool, because that gap also is not covered? Does he not think that it might with advantage be more detailed?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Question addressed to me was whether I will introduce compulsory marking schemes comparable with those adopted in some other countries, and the answer to that must be "No."

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these new markings will come into the shops when the new wool deliveries are made? Is he also aware that the measures taken by this Government are a considerable improvement upon those of the last Government, when cloth was described as wool if it contained only 15 per cent. of wool?

Imported Goods (Tariff Protection)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give a list of productions that can now be protected without putting tariffs up to Commonwealth countries.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I regret that it is not practicable to list all the products on which we can, in proved cases of need and subject to the conditions of the waiver of the no-new-preference rule, increase the duty without imposing a corresponding duty on the Commonwealth. This waiver and its conditions cover goods on which we have not bound the tariffs, and which have been traditionally admitted free of import duty when imported from the Commonwealth.

Mr. Williams: If the President is unable to give us a complete list, could he not help me by stating whether flower bulbs would be included?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If my hon. Friend wishes to ask me about specific items, perhaps he would do so either by putting down a Question or privately, when I will try to help him.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is reported that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations said in Australia today that the best way of affording protection to Australian goods was by a constant shortage of dollars? Is that the considered view of H.M. Government?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That raises an entirely different question.

Horticultural Industry (Protection)

Mr. G. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, after his successful agreement at the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, he will now state what his proposals are to protect British horticulture.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement as to the steps he contemplates taking in the near future for the further protection and assistance of British horticulturists following on his successful negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement which I made after Questions on 27th October and the reply which I then gave to a supplementary question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). We are, at present, dealing with a number of horticultural items under the procedures which were agreed recently at Geneva.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is my right hon. Friend aware that British horticulturists fully accept the necessity of imports from overseas, but that it is the timing of these imports that is of importance? Will he continue to use his best endeavours to ensure that the home producers are given a fair run in the home market before imports come in?

Mr. G. Williams: Could the President let us know how long it will take to increase the tariffs, if it is found necessary, and how long it will take to take them off, if that course should be found necessary? Will he continue the system of quotas so long as he can do so under the E.P.U. arrangements?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have already explained to the House what were the procedures arranged at Geneva. There is a 30-day period during which objections can be taken to certain goods, and we must certainly wait for the expiration of that time before I can make any further statement.

Furniture (Marking)

Miss Burton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that employers and trade unions engaged in the making of furniture are desirous that the name of the manufacturer shall be placed on the articles made; and if he will consider their recommendation, with a view to legislative action.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As the hon. Member was informed on 12th February and 3rd March last, Her Majesty's Government have decided not to provide for such marking by legislation. The views of all sections of the trade were fully taken into account before this decision was reached.

Miss Burton: Though none of us on this side imagines that a Minister would give wrong information, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he may not have been misled? Is he aware that both the trade unions and the employers in the furniture industry are desirous of this change, and will he say which side of the industry it was, if it was not the employers or the trade unions, which outweighed the views of these two bodies?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The retailers were against it. There is no prohibition on the part of the Government, and we do nothing to prevent anybody putting names on furniture.

Miss Burton: Does the President attach more weight, then, to the views of retailers than those of either the manufacturers or the trade unions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I take into account all views, and form my own judgment on them.

Anglo-Argentine Trade

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what further progress has been made in re-opening the market in Argentina for British goods.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As my hon. Friend knows, Argentina gave us an undertaking in the Trade Protocol of last December to give all facilities possible in 1953 for the continuance of traditional trade between our two countries. There have, however, been prolonged delays in the issue of import licences for United Kingdom goods, although in the case of "less essential" goods the Argentine authorities have issued import licences for about half of the £3 million's worth provided for in the trade agreement, and are taking the necessary steps for the import of the remainder. Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires in Buenos Aires has made strong representations to the Argentine Minister of Foreign Affairs about the delays in issuing licences for most British goods.

Mr. Hurd: Is my right hon. Friend hopeful that we shall soon see the benefits of the undertaking which President Peron has given twice recently, that all the sterling earned here by Argentina will be spent on sterling goods and services?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am hopeful that, with the increased sterling which Argentina now holds, it will be possible to achieve an inceased flow of trade between the two countries, for that will be of mutual benefit all round.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the latest figures, there was a short fall of 100,000 tons of meat from Argentina? What are the Government doing to help to get the meat out of Argentina?

Steel and Chemical Products (Exports to China)

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if, having regard to his adherence to the policies of the Consultative Group Cooperation Committee on East-West Trade, he will state to what extent the ban on the United Kingdom export of steel and chemical products to China has been relaxed since the Korean armistice;
(2) how many applications for licences for the export of steel and chemical products to China he has received in the last three months; what types and quantities of goods were involved; and how many licences, and for what quantities and values of goods, were granted.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: There has been no relaxation of the embargo on the export from the United Kingdom to China of strategic types of steel and chemical products. I regret that it would not be possible, without an unjustifiable amount of research, to give the particulars asked for about applications for export licences.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Minister say why he is operating an embargo so much more stringent than that of any other country represented on the international committee? Has his attention been drawn to the recent Japanese-Chinese agreement for £30 million worth of trade, which provides for the export of steel plates and copper from Japan to China, while he refuses to British manufacturers


licences for goods so that orders are going to France, Germany and Japan whose policies are supposed to be co-ordinated by this committee?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter, he will find that we do co-ordinate our policies with other countries. They may vary from time to time, but, on the steel issue, they have been brought more closely into line more recently.

Mr. Warbey: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that the American Government have removed no fewer than 28 categories from the Japanese banned list, and does he intend to do nothing to prevent British manufacturers being beaten to the post by the Japanese?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I certainly will look into the question which the hon. Gentleman raises, but I think he will find that, by and large, we keep very closely in line on these items with all the countries concerned.

International Consultative Group Co-operation Committee

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade the constitution and composition of the International Consultative Group Co-operation Committee, of which the United Kingdom is a member-State; and the extent to which its decisions on trade with the East are binding on Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Consultative Group consists of representatives of the Governments of the United States, Canada, Japan, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy, Denmark, Portugal, Western Germany, Norway, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Group is essentially an informal consultative body without executive authority, and the Co-ordinating Committee and the China Committee are component parts of it.
On the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, on 28th October.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that I have already sent him several examples of hundreds of goods being exported to China and other Eastern

countries while, at the same time, he is forbidding British manufacturers to make similar exports, and that if he so desires I will send him several more examples? Will the right hon. Gentleman make an urgent inquiry into this situation, because it is quite clear that both Germany and Japan are exporting steel and chemical products on a large scale?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am willing to receive any examples which the hon. Member or anybody else wishes to send me. The fact is that this Committee is specially designed to see that we all coordinate our policy in this respect.

Imported Cereals

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an assurance that the Government will maintain its powers to limit imports of cereals by the system of quotas; and that these powers will be used to prevent foreign dumping of cereals to the prejudice of the home-grown crops.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Cereals and feedingstuffs may at present be imported freely under open individual licence, and it would not be in accordance with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the use of quantitative restriction of imports to modify these arrangements unless this were to become necessary for balance of payments reasons. The Board of Trade's powers to prohibit or regulate the import of goods derive from the Import, Export and Customs (Defence) Act, 1939.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that I am disappointed that I did not receive an assurance from him in reply to my previous supplementary asking for first place in the home market for the home producer? Is he further aware that the position is equally serious with regard to cereals, and that, in East Anglia in particular, farmers have had the greatest difficulty in disposing of their barley this autumn because of the untimely arrival of large quantities from overseas?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The Government have already indicated, in their recent White Paper, the importance they attach to a stable and efficient agricultural industry, and have made provisions for deficiency payments in respect of cereals.

Mr. Gaitskell: Will not the President reassure his Liberal colleague that he fully understands the great dangers to British agriculture of this free import policy?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his very helpful intervention.

Anglo-American Film Agreement

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what efforts he made to reduce the dollar cost to this country of the recently-concluded Anglo-American Film Agreement.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Her Majesty's Government took their first available opportunity in September, 1952, to review the terms of the Anglo-American Agreement negotiated by the previous Government. The terms agreed on that occasion, and continued in the latest Agreement, set a lower limit on the amount which may be converted into dollars.
In this connection, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 27th October, when I explained the scope of the Agreement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: While commiserating with the President on the failure of his efforts to secure a reduction in the dollar cost to this country under the film agreement, may I ask him whether he will take every opportunity of saving dollars in this connection, because we can well do without some of the Hollywood rubbish which is now coming in and which is costing us millions of dollars?

Mr. Thorneycroft: We have already reduced the bill by 5 million dollars a year compared with what was paid under the previous Government.

Export Trade (Foreign Competition)

Mr. Lewis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the difficulties confronting British manufacturers in maintaining their export trade, due to the high and heavy costs of manufactured articles, especially when being confronted with growing competition from Germany and Japan, who are able to produce the same or similar articles more cheaply and with speedier delivery

dates; and what action he proposes to take to assist our export trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am fully aware that United Kingdom exporters are being faced with increasingly severe competition, especially in respect of price and delivery dates, from Germany and Japan as well as other countries. To meet this competition calls for the greatest efforts from all concerned. The Government's policy is to keep the national economy in the healthy condition necessary to enable these efforts to be effective; but the major responsibility rests on everyone in industry to keep down costs and to improve production.

Mr. Lewis: I am particularly interested in the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Is he not aware that one of the main causes of the rise in the price of these articles is that the trade unions are being compelled to ask for wage increases owing to the rapid rise in the cost of food? Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to restoring the food subsidies, and thus assist in bringing down the price of these articles?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I thought that that matter was disposed of by my right hon. and gallant Friend the other day.

Mr. Burden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that both sides of this House should realise that this is not the time for making party political capital out of the situation, but the time when both sides should preach wage restraint and greater production?

New Industries, Fife

Mr. Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade what decisions he has arrived at on the need for new industry in Fife consequent on his recent visit to that county, with particular reference to the new town of Glenrothes.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: During my visit to Scotland I had the opportunity of hearing the views of several bodies about the industrial needs of Fife. I recognise the importance of encouraging complementary industrial development as and when needed in the expanding Fife coalfield, including Glenrothes, and I will do what I can to help, subject to my responsibilities elsewhere.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister satisfied as to the immediate need for new industry in this now rapidly developing town? I hope he will not say, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he is keeping his eye on the problem, but will make some positive proposals. Will he compare the position of Glenrothes in this matter with that of East Kilbride, the other new town in Scotland?

Mr. Thorneycroft: On a recent visit to Scotland, I had a very full opportunity of comparing conditions in these places, and I shall give full consideration to the point put forward by the hon. Gentleman.

Cheese Imports

Mr. Crouch: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much unrationed cheese has been imported, under licence, during each of the last three years; and what was its declared importation value.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Imports under licence of unrationed natural and processed cheese are estimated to have been as follows:


Year
Quantity
Value



tons
£


1950
24,000
6,700,000


1951
33,000
9,000,000


1952
36,500
10,000,000


1953 (first 9 months)
22,500
5,600,000

Foreign Onions

Mr. Renton: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the crop of home-grown onions is adequate to satisfy the needs of British consumers for many weeks to come; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this crop is not prevented from being sold owing to imports of foreign onions.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am advised that this year's crop is expected to be larger than last year's, but that stocks of imported onions are lower than at this time last year. Under the arrangements announced at the beginning of this year, the open general licence for imports of onions was suspended on 1st August, and

imports are subject to total prohibition as from 16th August until 30th November.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great glut of homegrown onions, and does his reply mean that from 1st December onwards the difficulties of home producers in selling their crops are to be increased by unlimited imports of foreign onions?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am not prepared to give any undertaking as to what will happen after 30th November.

Light Industries, Haltwhistle (Development)

Mr. Speir: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many of the coal mines in the Halt-whistle area of Northumberland are threatened with closure; and whether he will take steps to encourage the development of light industries in this area so as to maintain employment there.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I realise that the workable reserves of many of the coal mines in this area are gradually being worked out over the years, though I understand that, as pits close, miners will, where possible, be offered coalmining employment elsewhere. I shall certainly do what I can to help with alternative industry as and when a problem of unemployment occurs.

Mr. Speir: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, strategically, this area is very well sited for factories engaged on defence projects? Will he call the attention of the Ministry of Supply and that of the Service Departments to that fact?

Colonel Clarke: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the shortage of coal, he will try to keep these pits open as long as possible?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think that is a question which ought to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Iron Curtain Countries (Strategic Goods Ban)

Miss Ward: asked the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards are in operation to ensure that goods covered by the strategical embargo for Iron Curtain countries, and initially consigned


to countries to whom the embargo does not apply, do not subsequently have their designations altered in transit.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Licensing control is not applied to exports to the Commonwealth (except to Hong Kong), nor to the Irish Republic nor the United States of America; but it is applied to exports to all other countries. Careful checks are made about the intended use of strategic goods before licences are granted and later to verify that the goods have entered the country for which they were licensed. Exporters are liable to penalties if they are concerned in any diversion of their goods to an unauthorised destination.

Miss Ward: As the Socialist Government informed me that there was no problem when I raised the matter with them when they were in office, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is, in fact, a problem, and, if there is, what is its real size?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I think there has always been a problem, but I believe that our strategic controls operate, and have operated, as effectively as any of the strategic controls imposed by any other country.

Mr. Snow: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that American cars are apparently in plentiful supply in China, whereas it was only a few days ago that we lifted the embargo on the export of British cars to Japan?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have seen a statement on that subject, but I am not at the moment in a position to verify it.

Exports to East Africa

Mr. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a further statement about the difficulties which our exporters are experiencing in the East African trade.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind, but if he is referring to the difficulties at the port of Mombasa I would refer him to the reply that I gave on 22nd October to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) when I explained that the port was being enlarged and that the full benefit should

be felt next year. If the hon. Member has some other difficulty in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Blackburn: Does the President not agree that it should be a matter of great concern to his Department that the time lag between applications for and the allocation of shipping space should be from nine to 12 months in this country compared with two to three weeks on the Continent? Further, does he not agree, since a large proportion of the exports from this country are concerned with materials for the construction of the Port of Mombasa that that fact should have been taken into account by the placing committee?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I believe it is important to everyone concerned with trade in that area, but I do not accept it as a fact that the system works in favour of the Continent in respect of all items. The port is being increased in size from a capacity of 100,000 tons per month in 1952 to 150,000 tons per month in 1956, and we should all see the benefit of this in the fairly near future.

Clothing Factory, Sunderland (Re-occupation)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now make a statement about the use of the Sunderland Trading Estates Factory at present occupied by Messrs. Prices, Tailors, Limited.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to his Question on 22nd October, the Board of Trade are giving Messrs. Prices, Tailors, Limited, every assistance in their task of finding a firm to take over the factory from them. I have nothing to add to that statement.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware in view of the fact that the date for Prices clearing out of this factory is very near now, that there is a great deal of anxiety because nothing has been done about this factory? It will be a disaster if the factory is unused.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's very proper anxiety about this case. Prices are doing everything they can to find a successor and we are doing all that we can to help them.

Finland—U.K.—U.S.S.R. Trade

Mr. N. Macpherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the proposal made by the Finnish Government for a triangular trade agreement between Finland, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; whether a similar approach has been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and what reply he has given to the Finnish proposal.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: The Finnish Government recently proposed that the United Kingdom might undertake to increase her imports from Russia, the sterling so earned being used by Russia to meet part of her trading deficit with Finland, who would in turn purchase more goods with that sterling from the United Kingdom.
There is at present no payments obstacle to such triangular trade, since sterling can already be freely transferred between Finland and Russia for current transactions. We have told the Finnish Government that, but have said that we will examine any concrete proposals they put forward, and have asked the Soviet Trade Delegation to let us know of any way in which we can assist.

Mr. Macpherson: While appreciating the difficulties of Finland, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not be distracted in any way from pursuing the very desirable end of reestablishing multilateral trade rather than bilateral or even tri-lateral agreements?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly. In point of fact, the payment arrangements between these countries already allows them to transfer sterling to finance such trade.

Military Material and Aircraft (Exports)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total value of our exports of military material and aircraft for 1952, and to the latest date in 1953 for which details are available.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Exact figures of the exports of military equipment are not available. Exports of arms and ammunition, which include sporting arms and ammunition and some other non-military material, and certain military and naval stores, were valued at £33 million in 1952,

and £37 million during January to September this year. Exports of aeroplanes and parts, including civil aircraft, were valued at £43 million in 1952, and £49 million during January to September this year.

Mr. Blackburn: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is rather dangerous to look only at the short-term policy in this matter and that the more we concentrate upon the export of military material the more danger there is to our traditional exports, as they are leaving the field quite open to our competitors, especially Germany and Japan?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman's Question was purely statistical. Policy with regard to the export of arms always must raise very important and very wide considerations. If the hon. Gentleman wants to ask a Question about that perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. Gaitskell: How much of these figures of exports reflected civil and how much military aircraft? Further, how much of that was due to off-shore purchases by the United States?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot say without notice, but if the right hon. Gentleman puts a Question down I shall be happy to give him a breakdown of the figures.

U.K.—Commonwealth Trade (Statistics)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume of imports and exports between the United Kingdom and other members of the Commonwealth for the years 1947, 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951 and 1952.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Since the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the right hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the figures are substantially better than the pre-war figures and are due to bulk buying and long-term trade agreements? What authority was there for saying to Australia at this moment that this system is to end forthwith?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures before he starts basing an argument upon them.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since the already published figures of his Department show a very big increase in exports to and imports from the Commonwealth in 1946, 1947, 1948 and 1949 as compared with 1938, surely the right hon. Gentleman can answer my right hon. Friend's Question now.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Gentleman simply asked for figures, which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If he puts down a Question of this sort I shall be very happy to answer it.

Following is the answer:


VOLUME OF UNITED KINGDOM TRADE WITH THE COMMONWEALTH (INCLUDING COLONIES)


—


(1950= 100)




Imports into the United Kingdom
United Kingdom exports


1947
…
…
100
55


1948
…
…
107
76


1949
…
…
111
90


1950
…
…
100
100


1951
…
…
107
108


1952
…
…
118
96

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax Changes (Announcement)

Mr. John Hall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding a revised method of announcing and implementing Purchase Tax changes which will reduce the danger of a trade recession in the weeks before the 1954 Budget.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): My right hon. Friend has been asked by a number of trade interests to make any necessary Purchase Tax changes next year in January rather than in April; and, as he said in reply to a recent Question, he will certainly bear those representations carefully in mind in coming to a decision on this matter.

Mr. Hall: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the confident anticipation that there will be reduction or even abolition

of this particular form of taxation may have a very bad effect upon trade in general in the weeks before the Budget? Will he look at the matter again to see whether it is not possible to devise a system which will enable this matter to be dealt with this year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree that this is an important problem. That is why my right hon. Friend is studying it.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: When does the Chancellor expect to be able to make a decision on this matter, because it is of vital interest to many trading concerns?

Mr. Gaitskell: While recognising that much of the trouble in this matter has been caused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rash statements and half promises made at the time of last year's Budget, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will reply to my hon. Friend's question when a decision is likely to take place? Is he aware that on this side of the House we are much concerned with the danger created by the right hon. Gentleman's conversations in these matters and think that this matter should be seriously investigated?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman should be well aware that my right hon. Friend made no rash promises or half statements. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to examine what my right hon. Friend said during the Finance Bill debates he would see that no grounds were given for any expectations of the kind to which he has referred. In reply to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood), I cannot say anything more today.

Post-war Credits

Mr. Gower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what aggregate sums of money are due in respect of post-war credits to persons over 60 years of age and to persons between 40 and 60 years of age, respectively; and what is the total sum due to the personal representatives or beneficiaries of persons who have died before reaching the specified age for repayment.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Statistics of actual ages of post-war credit holders are not available, but on the basis of the age


distribution of the working population when the credits were created and of repayments in recent years, it is estimated that credits outstanding total about £73 million in respect of holders aged 60 and over. These will, of course, practically all be men, as women are entitled to repayment at 60.
On a similar basis, the best figures I can give in reply to the second and third parts of the Question are: about £370 million, and about £70 million respectively.

Mr. Gower: The third figure being comparatively small, would my hon. Friend look at it again, because it seems extremely unlikely that these families have been prevented from having payment solely by the death of the breadwinner?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my right hon. Friend has indicated, this and other proposals will be considered in connection with his Budget.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set up tribunals to consider conditions of hardship which would justify the repayment of post-war credits, and lay down principles to assist such tribunals in assessing degrees of hardship.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot accept this suggestion.

Mr. Johnson: While recognising the undoubted difficulties in setting up such tribunals, may I ask my hon. Friend if he is not aware that many people, now that we have, at last, a Chancellor in whose ability they have confidence, are looking to him to mitigate undoubted hardships?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As I have already indicated, my right hon. Friend will consider this matter when considering his Budget arrangements.

Motor Cycle Crash Helmets (Taxation)

Sir R. Acland: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will abolish Purchase Tax on motor cycle crash helmets.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend regrets that he cannot single out this particular form of protective clothing for a special tax exemption.

Sir R. Acland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very strong feeling which is belatedly arising over motor cycle deaths, and that it is a very heavy responsibility for his right hon. Friend and himself to take on their shoulders. Young men will undoubtedly be deterred from buying this headgear by the extra 7s., 10s. or 15s. Purchase Tax. Would it not be wise to remove it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. Baronet will preserve a sense of proportion in this matter. It is not very probable that those who go to the expense of running a motor cycle, on which itself the tax falls, will be deterred by a matter of a few shillings from taking this sensible precaution.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is this not rather a silly and stuffy attitude to take? Various people are encouraging young motor cyclists to wear crash helmets. Surely it is desirable to make this modest and relatively cheap concession in order to encourage them to do the very thing that the advocates of road safety want to promote.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that this is not a new problem, and that the attitude which he has characterised by some discourteous adjectives is precisely the same as that which was adopted by his own Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Irish Linen (Tax)

Captain Orr: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to make the changes in the Purchase Tax D levels requested by the hon. Member for Down, South on behalf of the Irish Linen Guild and the Irish Linen Merchants' Association.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. But I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that this matter is being carefully examined and will be borne in mind when the D scheme is reviewed.

Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been closely examined since the last Finance Bill and that the industry is becoming very impatient?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I appreciate the interest of the industry in Northern Ireland in the matter, but one of the


issues in question is the competitive position of these fabrics as against other fabrics. Obviously, one has to weigh one against the other rather carefully.

United Steel Companies

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate, on the basis of the dividend proposed to shareholders in the prospectus issued by the Iron and Steel Holding Realisation Agency in respect of the United Steel companies; and, on the basis of the present cost of Government borrowing, of how much additional money will be paid out annually by these companies to their shareholders, compared to the interest which would have been paid out by the companies in interest, if they had remained nationally owned.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the capital of these companies has been increased as the result of their reorganisation. But the actual amount which will be paid out in future years will depend, among other things, on the amount of new capital raised in future, the efficiency of the way in which the companies are managed, the distribution policy adopted, the level of steel prices, and general trade conditions. No accurate estimate of the figure asked for is therefore possible.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Financial Secretary aware that I did not ask for an accurate estimate, which, I agree, is impossible, but is it not possible to give a rough estimate? Would he disagree if I said that the figure must amount to between £5 million and £10 million a year, which, in future, will be paid out to shareholders in the steel industry who contribute nothing whatsoever to the welfare of the industry?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the first place the right hon. Gentleman asked for an estimate. Estimates given from this Bench are accurate estimates. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps that is a change from the practice of two years ago, with which right hon. Gentlemen are familiar. I am afraid that as I cannot give anything like an accurate estimate, I really cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an estimate at all; except to say that his own figures are fantastically wide of the mark.

Mr. Strauss: Would the Financial Secretary agree that, as the difference in the rate is something between 3½ and 7¼ per cent. on a substantial proportion of the capital involved, the difference must amount to many millions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is begging the question. As to the future distribution which it is thought possible and appropriate for these companies to undertake, his calculations have to be based on certain assumptions, which rest, of course, on wholly unsubstantiated guesses.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the underwriting and other charges arising from the flotation of the United Steel Companies stock.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The total expenses payable by the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in this connection are provisionally estimated at about £460,000. Of this, £350,000 is commission to the consortium of issuing houses who have taken part in the arangements.

Mr. Strauss: Does the Financial Secretary agree, in this case at any rate, that if the rest of the publicly-owned iron and steel companies are sold off in a similar way many millions of pounds will have to be paid out of the resources of the iron and steel companies for wholly unproductive purposes?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir. This is part of a process of implementing the decision of the electorate that the steel industry should be denationalised. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the money to which he refers will play a very useful part in carrying out that social process.

Mr. Jay: Does the Financial Secretary realise that, in addition to that rake-off, this transaction was carried out on terms which gave the private investor a yield of at least 1 per cent. more than he would get on comparable shares? Does he feel, in these circumstances, that his right hon. Friend has carried out his duty to protect the public interest?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the different rates of interest on Government securities and on industrials.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the value of the £ sterling in October, 1951, 1952, and 1953, respectively, as compared with 20s. in 1945.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. R. Maudling): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ as 20s. in 1945, the corresponding figure for October, 1951, is estimated to have been 14s. 3d., for October, 1952, 13s. 8d., and for September, 1953, the latest available date, 13s. 5d. These estimates are based on the price index for all consumer goods and services, calculated annually for national income purposes, from 1945 to 1952, and the Interim Index of Retail Prices since then.

Mr. Osborne: Do I understand from those figures that, during the two years of Conservative Government, the value of the £, internally, has fallen by only 10d., whereas, during six years of Socialist government, the internal purchasing power of the £ fell by 5s. 3d.? Perhaps I could correct that figure and say 5s. 9d. Will my hon. Friend see that these figures are made known to the electorate?

Mr. Maudling: My hon. Friend's amended mathematics are quite accurate. It is also a fact that the Ministry of Labour index has now been practically stationary for well over a year, compared with a rise of 15 points in the comparable period before October, 1951.

Dr. King: Is it suggested that these figures represent the implementation of the promise which the Tory Party made during the Election, when they flooded the country with posters bearing the picture of a torn £1 note and the slogan "Mend the hole in the £"?

Mr. Maudling: I think the contrast between the figures for the last two years and the figures for the preceding years vindicates my right hon. Friend's policy.

THREE-POWER CONFERENCE, BERMUDA

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will indicate the nature of the subjects he is proposing to be discussed at the conference of heads of principal States, including the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): I have at the present time nothing to add to the statement regarding the decision to hold a three-Power Conference at Bermuda which I made in the House on Tuesday in reply to questions by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Warbey: While appreciating the right hon. Gentleman's peculiar difficulty today in making a statement about his intentions, might I ask him to co-ordinate his policy in this matter with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who, last week in this House, poured cold water on those who spoke about four-Power talks, and suggested that the only possible topics for such a conference would be Germany and Korea, and that other arrangements were already in train for those subjects?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that I could be expected to give an answer on that point now.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal, on the assumption that the Government are staying in office, what is the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): The right hon. Gentleman's assumption is correct. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 16TH NOVEMBER—The Government have agreed to afford an opportunity for a debate on the Opposition Motion relating to National Service which will be tabled today.

TUESDAY, 17TH NOVEMBER—In view of the arrangement which has been made in regard to Monday's debate, the Order relating to the National Service Act, 1948, will be taken after a short debate.

Second Reading: Navy, Army and Air Force Reserves Bill.

Committee stage: Ways and Means Resolution relating to Armed Forces (Housing Loans).

WEDNESDAY, 18TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Cotton Bill.

Committee stage: Money Resolution.

Report stage: Ways and Means Resolution relating to Armed Forces (Housing Loans).

THURSDAY, 19TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages: Public Works Loans Bill; Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill; Air Corporations Bill.

FRIDAY, 20TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading: Cinematograph Film Production (Special Loans) Bill.

Committee stage: Money Resolution.

Mr. Lee: On Tuesday last the Leader of the House and the Minister of Food both referred to a Motion standing on the Order Paper relating to food subsidies, so it is obvious that the Government attach importance to it. Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us the date on which the Government popose to accept the challenge in this Motion?

Mr. Crookshank: No, Sir. We had a challenge on food prices on Tuesday of this week. That settles it.

Mr. Fernyhough: In view of the importance of the subject to thousands of young men in this country, and the number of hon. Members who will want to take part in Monday's debate, will the Leader of the House consider extending the time?

Mr. Crookshank: I have not heard that suggested through the usual channels.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is not in the Vote Office a copy of the Order in Council on the suspension of the Constitution in British Guiana, which was laid on the Table on 5th November? Will be see that the Order in Council is available for Members at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Crookshank: I will certainly make inquiries.

GLASSWARE ORDER (ANNULMENT)

Mr. H. Morrison: I wish to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the defeat of Her Majesty's Government last night on a Motion moved by a Government supporter, as neither he nor the Leader of the House were present, whether he will now be good enough to make a statement on the Government's intentions, having regard to this serious occurrence?

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having given some indication that he intended to raise this matter today. I will certainly do what is required of me in the matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] I think we shall all agree that it seems to have been rather a sharp piece of work, although I must admit that there are precedents for this sort of thing in former Parliaments. I understand that the Opposition Whips were not officially involved but that 13 Members of what I may, perhaps, call the Bevanite faction, emerged suddenly from cellars and other hiding places and so were able to play a noticeable part in Parliamentary business. We know that they are in favour of the maintenance of controls, but perhaps they are not aware that they have committed their party to making it an offence for manufacturers to sell on the home market such things as glassware, pianos and organs, except under special licences of the Board of Trade.
The House will realise that the matter will require to be put right. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will shortly make a new Order revoking these various controls, which would otherwise have to be reinstituted on the responsibility—perhaps I might almost say on the irresponsibility—of the party opposite. The new Order will be laid before the House as soon as convenient, and I hope that by then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will find himself able to reestablish sufficient discipline in his party to enable it to show proper respect for the dignity of the House and for the comfort of the general public.

Mr. Morrison: This is a string of unconstitutional irrelevances. Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that the question whether or not a Government is defeated is determined by who happens to vote against it? Is he aware that this was no move on the part of any section of the Labour Party? We acted as a party and we were entitled so to do. Is he arguing that because the official Whips were not on, therefore he need not take any notice of it? Why does he go in for all this street corner stuff? May I remind the Prime Minister—indeed, I wonder that he has not rubbed it into us—that we had a similar defeat brought about by his hon. Friends and at once,


that very night—I did it myself—we said that we would accept the decision of the House? The Prime Minister has not said that. He says, "I will go away and I will see that the House alters its decision," instead of accepting the decision of the House. I ask the Prime Minister to take this matter seriously and not turn it into one of his accustomed larks.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding us of the defeat on the snap Adjournment Division on the coal question in the late Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheese."] There was also one on coal. That is the one about which the right hon. Gentleman expressed himself in very memorable phrases—only not, I must admit, in this House. He described it as "an irresponsible bit of foolery" and "a schoolboy conspiracy." I really think that he has got one of his own back, with repercussions in a particular quarter to which I have already referred.

Sir H. Williams: rose—

Hon. Members: Egg.

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. Is there any precedent for an hon. Member, having, last night, offered an affront to the House—an affront which, at the time, as you were leaving the Chair, Mr. Speaker, we realise it was difficult for you or anyone else to deal with, and the marks of which still stain the Floor of the House—being allowed, without apology, to address the House now either on an important or unimportant occasion? Is there anything that can be done to mark the opinion of the House about the affront that has been offered to the dignity of this Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: I regard the incident to which the hon. Member has referred as a very unfortunate one, and one which I hope will not occur again, but I cannot establish where the blame lies. Some responsibility rests with the hon. Member who brought the egg into the Chamber. I must again repeat what I said last year—that it is not good practice for hon. Members to bring anything into the Chamber which is not necessary for the debate. In any case, in answer to the hon. Member's point of order, the object in question cannot be considered as fresh

or topical at this moment, so I think we should pass from it.

Sir H. Williams: Will the Prime Minister reconsider the latter part of his statement, in which he said that it was proposed to make the Order afresh? As I understand the situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "The egg situation."] Just a moment, I am serious. The Statutory Instruments Act of 1946 provides that when an Order has been prayed against, and the Prayer is carried, everything done prior to the Prayer remains validated, and the Order then ceases to be effective with regard to the future. This particular Order did certain things in July. It revoked certain Orders. Last night's Prayer cannot revive those Orders. In accordance with well-established constitutional practice, the repeal of a repeal does not revive the original Act. Equally, last night's Prayer does not revive the Orders which were revoked last July.

The Prime Minister: I shall ask the President of the Board of Trade to deal with that technical point himself.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: In reply to my hon. Friend, we have looked carefully into this matter and have come to the conclusion that the better view is that as the original Order is revived the proper course would be to table a new Order revoking the original one.

Mr. Willey: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has been completely misinformed about this matter? Last night's vote was an all-party revulsion at the conduct of the Government. The Motion was moved by the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and seconded by myself. The Motion would not have been carried but for the deliberate abstension of the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends. Is the Prime Minister now stigmatising some of his hon. Friends as Bevanite plotters?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly relieve them of such an imputation.

Mr. Snow: On a point of order. The Prime Minister stated, just now, that a new Order would be made. Constitutionally speaking, am I not right in saying that the decision of the House of Commons must be communicated to Her Majesty the Queen forthwith? May we have an assurance that that will be done?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member is perfectly right. The ordinary process of annulment must go through, and then a new revocation Order will be tabled.

Mr. Mitchison: Is it not the gravest disrespect to the Crown that this House, being in the course of petitioning the Crown to annul an Order, is now taking steps to do the very opposite to that which it is asking should be done?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order; it is a matter of opinion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(CONSTRUCTION OF "COUNSELLORS OF STATE.")

Any reference in this Act or the Regency Acts, 1937 and 1943, to persons to whom Royal functions may be delegated as Counsellors of State shall be construed in such a way as not to exclude one such person.—[Mr. Gordon Walker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am grateful to you, Sir Charles, for allowing me to move a new Clause in manuscript. If I may, I shall read it to the House, because nobody but the Home Secretary, yourself and myself has had it in their possession. It reads as follows:
Any reference in this Act or the Regency Acts, 1937 and 1943, to persons to whom Royal functions may be delegated as Counsellors of State shall be construed in such a way as not to exclude one such person.
I am not sure if I have the right sort of wording, because I had to draft it very quickly, but the purpose is to carry out the proposition which I made in detail in a speech yesterday and which I shall not now repeat. Indeed, I think it also carries out what the Home Secretary said was his general feeling about the proposition which I made, namely, that it should not be written into this Bill in so many words—because it was too big a thing to write into a Bill like this at such short notice—but should be left open for further consideration and, if necessary, discussion with other Commonwealth Governments.
This new Clause seeks to ensure that the Bill shall not be a statutory bar in the way of appointing a single person or Governor-General here, in the Queen's absence, in such a way that it would need a new Act to be passed were we to decide to do it in the future. I am trying


to leave this possibility open and avoid putting a statutory bar in the way of such action. As I understand the position, if we could leave it open in this Bill whether the Queen would appoint a single Governor-General or a number of Counsellors of State, the Queen would have the power to appoint a single Governor-General if she were so advised by her then Ministers.
It seems to me that the provision for representing the Crown here in this Kingdom during the Queen's absence derives from two sources. One is statutory, namely, the Act of 1937, which has been carried on in later legislation. The second is the Royal Prerogative, because there were at least three occasions on which King George V appointed Counsellors of State before the Act of 1937, which was, of course, passed after his death. Nobody has questioned the legality of setting up the Counsellors of State at that time. It must, therefore, have been done by virtue of the Royal Prerogative, because no statutory authority empowered the King to do it or his Ministers to advise him to do it.
If we leave it open in this Bill for either of these courses to be used, it would be possible for the Queen, on the advice of her Ministers, to take that course if it were thought desirable at a later stage. The new Clause does not in any way prescribe that it should be done, but merely that it could be done. I think it is a very desirable change to make, as I argued yesterday, and it is, therefore, all the more desirable that it should be left open for it to be made.
I do not know whether the words I have chosen are the best. It is very difficult to alter such a complicated Bill, with many references in it to Counsellors of State. I do not doubt that I have chosen the wrong words, but what I should like to hear from the Home Secretary is that he will consider the drafting of the new Clause and the re-drafting of the Bill when it goes to another place, to leave the course I propose open, so that no statutory bar is put in the way of it by this Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, gave me all the notice that he possibly could in view of his own difficulties with the

drafting, but it was not long notice. I am not blaming him, but I want to explain that to the Committee. However, I think the Committee will appreciate that it does not require a great deal of notice to see the difficulties of the course proposed. What requires much more notice is to find another course which will be satisfactory.
I am advised, and my own view coincides, so far as I have had time to form it, that there are two difficulties in the new Clause, which the right hon. Gentleman foresaw, because Section 6 of the Act of 1937 provides specifically for the delegation to Counsellors of State, provides their number, and provides how the functions delegated should be exercised jointly by the Counsellors or by such number as may be specified in the Letters Patent. It would be very difficult for that to co-exist with the words the right hon. Gentleman puts forward, and I could not advise the Committee as a technical matter to incorporate them in the Bill.
I appreciate—the right hon. Gentleman has frankly said so—that he wants not only to ventilate the point but to bring it before the Government and to ask the Government for their intentions. I said yesterday, and I repeat, that I was very struck by the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, namely, that we should not monopolise the symbol of the Commonwealth. I say that, and I think it is a point which we have got very seriously to consider. On the other hand, one is bound to consider in juxtaposition to that the special position of this country as the cradle and centre of the Commonwealth. I do not think there is any necessary division between these things, but I think that they have to be considered very carefully because both are important points.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as my predecessor, will appreciate, one of the things for which we have always stood is that any member of the Commonwealth and Empire, of any Colony, can come here and be admitted here, and the Home Secretary has no power to deport him. He is in the special position of coming to the centre of the Commonwealth. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that does not apply in all the Dominions, because they are entitled to form their own views


of the problem. I give that only as an illustration of the difficulties which have to be carefully considered; on the one hand, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we must not monopolise; on the other hand, the duty which we have generously and willingly performed of being the metropolis or centre of the Commonwealth and Empire.
I think the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that double basis is reflected in the difference between a Governor-General and the Counsellors of State. If one takes just one or two examples, one sees that the Governor-General continues to exercise the Royal functions when the Sovereign is in that Realm except in so far as the Sovereign undertakes special functions and duties during the visit; and from the other point of view, a Governor-General is selected to represent the Sovereign for a fixed period of years for the very reason that the Sovereign is not present in person. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman considers this point, as I am sure he will—and I shall be very happy to discuss it with him—he will see that there is a considerable argument that if his course were to be followed there would have to be a permanent Governor-General in this country in order to get the equation and equality which he has in mind.
I hope that the Committee will not think that I am being obstructive. What I am trying to do is to show that there are a number of difficult points raised by this suggestion, and I mention, without developing, the point which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) and my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mrs. Ford), that there might be a special position, first of all from the fact that the United Kingdom was formed out of two Kingdoms, and, second, with regard to the position of Northern Ireland. These are other points which have to be considered and which I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to note.
I have dealt with the position as regards the Governor-General. Now let us look at it from the point of view of the Counsellors of State. The purpose of the Counsellors of State is to ensure the discharge of Royal functions in the event of the Sovereign's temporary inability through illness or absence to discharge

them in person. I stress the point "temporary inability." When the Sovereign is totally unable or totally unavailable to discharge the Royal functions in the United Kingdom they are discharged by one person, the Regent. The total incapacity or total unavailability of the Sovereign in the United Kingdom does not, however, affect or impair the authority of the Governor-General in a Commonwealth country unless the reason for the Sovereign's total unavailability in the United Kingdom should be her presence in that particular Commonwealth country and, as I said, her performing certain duties usually performed by the Governor-General.
4.0 p.m.
These are some of the points, and there are many more. Therefore, I ask the right hon. Member for Smethwick to rest content with the assurance which I gave him, and from which I do not deviate, that this matter will receive serious consideration. I think there is great sympathy in the House with his warning to us about monopolising the symbol of the Commonwealth, but I think I have said enough to show that there is also a special position relating to this country which one must bear in mind. I also remind him, and I think he agrees, that it would require not only consideration but very careful and elaborate consultation with all the countries of the Commonwealth before we could make a change of this kind.
Therefore, I suggest to him that he rests content at the moment with the promise of consideration and does not press his new Clause which, as I have informed the Committee, is in my view technically very difficult to square with the existing legislation. I do not wish to mislead the right hon. Gentleman or the House in any way. I cannot promise that this alteration will be made in another place. I do not think that a Bill of this sort, which on this point, as opposed to the Regency point, merely adds one to five Counsellors of State, is an occasion when a great constitutional change of this kind should be put forward. Therefore, while thanking the right hon. Gentleman, as I do sincerely, I believe on behalf of everyone in the Committee, for having raised an interesting point for our consideration, I ask him not to press this change on the occasion of this Bill.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I am sure that both sides of the Committee will appreciate the sympathetic response of the Home Secretary to the new Clause proposed by my right hon. Friend. I am sure that we all understand the technical difficulties about accepting this new Clause which stand in the Home Secretary's way. There are, however, one or two observations which fell from the Home Secretary which seem to me worthy of somewhat further exploration now that we have this opportunity of ventilating the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made yesterday and which, it seems to me, has commanded a good deal of support not only on both sides of the House but in the country.
The thought which provoked this suggestion is, of course, not merely the thought that we in this country should not monopolise the Monarch; it is also partly due to a desire to preserve complete equality between the various parts of the Commonwealth, consistent, of course, with the special characteristics of this country as the metropolis of the Commonwealth.
One of the objections which the Home Secretary advanced, was, as I understood, the fact that if we ever adopted in this country the suggestion of having a Governor-General in order to fulfil Royal functions during the Monarch's absence, as distinct from having Counsellors of State, it would be necessary to have a permanent Governor-General. That does not seem to follow at all. I thought that was the weakest of the objections which the Home Secretary put forward.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I wish to make it clear that I said that it raised the point for consideration. I only had an hour to consider this point, and I do not pretend that it is a final objection, but it is a point which will have to be considered in changing the conception from someone who temporarily performs Royal functions to that of a Governor-General. I do not want to go further, and I do not want the House to think that I did.

Mr. Ede: Unless it is a permanent appointment, how is there to be equality with the Dominions, where the Governors-General are permanent?

Mr. Gordon Walker: They are not permanent.

Mr. Fletcher: The Home Secretary said that he had had only an hour to consider this point. I had no notice about it at all. Therefore, in a sense, we are all speaking spontaneously and anything we say must be regarded in that context.
There was another aspect of the Home Secretary's remarks which disturbed me. He seemed to suggest that when the Monarch was visiting a part of the Commonwealth overseas, the whole of the Governor-General's functions continued to exist. That also is a subject which I should have thought was worth exploring at the same time.
If, for example, one can imagine a hypothetical case of the problem of a Dissolution arising in a Commonwealth country during the time of the Monarch's visit, and if one can imagine the unhappy circumstances of there perhaps being a change in the office of Prime Minister because of death or some other reason while the Monarch is visiting a Commonwealth country, quite a serious constitutional problem would arise—whether in those circumstances the Royal functions should be exercised by the Monarch who happened to be present in that Commonwealth country or whether they should be exercised by the Governor-General. Speaking for myself, I should have thought that, if such a set of circumstances were to arise, a good many people in any Commonwealth country so concerned might well expect the Monarch to give his or her attention to such a serious constitutional problem.
Therefore, as travel becomes increasingly easy and increasingly common, I should have hoped that, if we arrive at the time when the Monarch travels much more frequently throughout the Commonwealth than has been possible in the past, we might also have arrived at the time when it would be natural for the Monarch, when in a particular country, to exercise there during the time of that visit, discretionary Royal functions at least as well as the purely ceremonial functions, the Governor-General to be in obeyance.
Then it would be consistent with that arrangement in the Commonwealth for any Governor-General who might be appointed to the United Kingdom only to function during the time of the


Monarch's absence from this country. That would be the ideal system of equality. Therefore, as all that we are doing at the moment is to put forward suggestions about this matter for future consideration, I hope that suggestion will also be taken into consideration.
I am fully aware that this is a matter on which eventually full consultation will be required among all Commonwealth countries. In the discussions that are presumably to take place as a result of the sympathetic consideration promised by the Home Secretary yesterday and again today, I hope that the whole of the possibilities that leap to the mind will be considered with a view to doing whatever is necessary and appropriate to bring the changing Constitution of the British Commonwealth into line with the changing conditions of our time.
I am sure that in the long run it will cement both the relations in the Commonwealth and the loyalty and respect for the Crown if the greatest possible measure of equality among all the nations of the Commonwealth is brought about. Therefore, I hope we shall not have heard the last of this matter today. I myself am very much indebted, as I am sure other hon. Members are, to my right hon. Friend for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Committee.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I did not have the advantage of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday, but I shall certainly read what he said with the greatest attention. I listened to his words with great care just now, and I did not gather from him that any pledge had been given to canvass the Commonwealth on this idea which has emanated from the party opposite.
I should have thought that this country would have been the last country that would have wanted to create any equalitarian arrangement of this kind. One of the things which holds the Empire so firmly together is the higher authority, the greater prestige and the more ancient history and symbolism that this country has been able to evince.
If members of the Commonwealth were to come to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and ask for the new arrangement to be made, and indicated that it was essential to them,

or that the people in their own countries desired it to be a Commonwealth change, then I think there would be something to be said for giving it very earnest consideration. But I am opposed to any idea that we should engender in this House an arrangement of this kind, particularly when emanating from an egalitarian party. I would regard any such idea as absolutely deplorable.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend, behind the carefully chosen words which he used this afternoon, has no intention of promoting the canvassing of this idea throughout the Commonwealth and Empire.

Mr. Ede: I should not have risen but for the speech just made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I do not think that it is playing fair to suggest, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) would be the last person to suggest, that there was any party significance in the speech which he made. He did not make that claim for it when he was speaking, and I do not think that the Home Secretary took any partisan view in dealing with it.
Here was an idea thrown out by a Member of the House of Commons who has held the high and responsible position of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and to that extent it must be regarded as rather more authoritatively personal than any put forward by an hon. Member on either side of the House who has never shouldered that kind of responsibility. It would be very wrong indeed, I think, to suggest that it had any party significance at all—any more, apparently, than the fact that the Prayer last night was moved by an hon. Member sitting on the Government benches had any weight politically in the mind of the Prime Minister this afternoon.
4.15 p.m.
Therefore, I would suggest that it is desirable on these occasions, when we are dealing with a matter on which general agreement has been very marked in the House, that hon. Members should not be inhibited from putting forward personal points of view for fear that they might be creating a partisan atmosphere.
As I have previously indicated, I think that this matter is so complicated that


it would take a great deal of thinking out. There has recently been published a book by Mr. Nevile Shute.

Mr. M. Follick: "In the Wet."

Mr. Ede: I think that he must have been very wet himself when be brought it out. One of the arguments put to us in that book was the way in which the author worked out my right hon. Friend's idea which, he alleged, had been caused by a coalition between the present Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I would ask the noble Lord to believe that my right hon. Friend was putting forward an idea that occurred to him. I do not think that he had any consultation with anyone which would have entitled him, even had he wished to do so, to say that he was speaking on behalf of the party.
I hope that we shall on these occasions, and on this very delicate matter of the development of relationships within the Commonwealth, be able to put forward views which are worth canvassing or worth considering, and which, in any event, owing to the great variety of Governments we now have within the Commonwealth, will need a good many months and possibly years of consideration before they can be put into a form that could be put to this House by a Government, or accepted by a Government.

Mr. Charles Williams: It is very seldom that I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but I must say that I rarely intervene in this sort of debate, and I certainly should not have entered into it unless I thought there was a slight misconception as to what the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday on this matter.
I listened to the whole of his speech, which, I think, if I may say so with respect, was extremely tactful, on a very difficult matter. He brought forward a new idea to many of us and one which quite obviously interested everyone who heard it; and one which is worthy of the deepest consideration. It is one which, so far as I am concerned, I am only too glad to hear brought up again today. Having gone so far as that, I think that there was no other course which the Home Secretary could possibly have

taken than to refuse to put this new Clause in the Bill, and I am glad that the Home Secretary has said that for practical reasons it is unlikely that this can be inserted in another place.
I am sure that a very great change such as this must be is one which calls for the fullest possible consideration not only by the Government of the day, and not only after consultation with the other Governments in the Commonwealth countries; on a matter of this sort I should like to see, as I think all hon. Members in the House would, the closest collaboration between the Government and the Opposition so that we can get an agreed policy on this matter.
I was shocked by only one thing, and that not too much, in what the right hon. Gentleman said. On a matter of this importance, I do not think an Amendment to this sort of Bill should be inserted in another place. I happen to be an extremely strong House of Commons man and have served here for many years, and on the greatest constitutional questions I have always held that if anything has to be done, the House of Commons should originate it. I am glad to see that, at any rate so far as the Leader of the Liberal Party is concerned, he acknowledges that even his diluted form of Liberalism is in co-ordination with my thorough-going Liberalism in the widest sense.
I think almost everyone who has heard the debate will realise that the House of Commons has had a considerable service rendered to it by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) on a matter in which deep thought is required. I think that, from what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said, it is almost impossible to carry out the suggestion, and the whole balance is on the other side of the new Clause. At the same time, one cannot help feeling that the House on this occasion has used its time well in a matter which certainly ought to have been ventilated.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I am sorry that I cannot join in the general chorus of praise for the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). This is obviously a most important question, to which every Member of the House of Commons would like to give


deep thought and on which many Members would like to intervene. It is quite impossible to have a satisfactory debate on a manuscript new Clause, and it is a pity that this little truncated debate has taken place. It is not representative of the House. No Member of the House, except those few who were present 20 minutes ago, knew that the right hon. Member was going to raise the matter, and I venture to protest.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member will know that I have not set the time-table for the House. I have not set two days consecutively for the discussion of the Bill. I am not responsible for that.

Mr. Nicholson: I know that the right hon. Member did not set the time-table, but had he wished to raise this important question, which he raised in an admirable and ideal manner, he could have made representations through the usual channels to the effect that he wanted a serious debate, with previous notice given, so that it could be properly considered by the House of Commons.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I am at a disadvantage with other hon. Members in not, perhaps inevitably, having any warning that this subject was to be discussed at this stage of our consideration of the Bill. As I understand it, one of the processes of change in the Constitution is the constant reiteration of a particular subject by those who happen to be interested in that subject until it gradually becomes of greater interest to those who were not initially interested in it at all. Therefore, I say that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has done a service, because there are not many opportunities when it is possible to ventilate a subject like this in the House of Commons.
I intervene merely to say that one of the services that this little debate can render is, perhaps, to lay by the heels the misunderstanding which appeared to me to be inherent in the contribution made by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). The constitutional precedent which was followed in the case of the Commonwealth countries in the appointment of a Governor-General—a single

individual—is a far better constitutional precedent for the representation of the Sovereign than the present system—I here correct myself after the remarks yesterday of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—of the institution of the Counsellors of State.
Therefore, it would not be a question of equalising ourselves down, so to speak, to the constitutional practice of the Commonwealth countries; it would be recovering the theme of constitutional development which has been followed in the Constitutions of the Commonwealth Territories but from which we in this country have departed in very recent times.
I hope that this matter, which has very great importance from a sentimental, a symbolic and also a practical political point of view as far as this country and the Commonwealth as a whole are concerned, will, as a result of this debate, at any rate again be brought to the notice of those who are interested and perhaps be advanced a little further in the long evolution that inevitably takes place when public opinion generally has to be brought to understand the particular importance of what is perhaps a rather complicated point of constitutional development.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: This is undoubtedly a very complicated point of constitutional development and I rise simply to stress one aspect of the complication which is, perhaps, inclined to be overlooked. The suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) seems to me just a little too formalistic, a little too much a matter of form, rather than a matter of realities. I find that to be particularly true when I try to work out some of the implications of it in practice which we have just been considering; for example, the implication resulting from the change of location of the Sovereign and the discharge of the functions of Sovereignty in the particular Dominion where the Sovereign is residing.
We have to keep in mind in that connection not merely that the nature of the Crown itself changes, has changed in the past, and is likely to change in the course of the present reign; but when we think of the Queen being present in another Dominion and herself, instead of the


Governor-General, discharging some of the functions of the Crown there, what we must also remember is that the constitutional systems inside the Dominions are themselves subject to change.
There is no certainty that the Canadian Cabinet system, the Canadian constitutional methods, will develop along exactly the same lines as our own, and it may simply not be possible for the one individual to exercise within the individual nations of the Commonwealth the functions of Sovereignty with anything like correctness or accuracy. We have to remember, that is to say, that while the Crown represents and symbolises the unity that there is in the Commonwealth, it does not necessarily mean that we have to think of it as representing complete similarity among the nations of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth may well remain one, it may develop a greater and greater unity, while at the same time the individual nations of the Commonwealth are developing more and more diverse constitutional practices. It seems to me, therefore, that while my right hon. Friend has made a suggestion that brings up a large number of matters, to which we should give serious consideration, it is not on the whole a suggestion that we ought just now to put into effect, for the reasons I have suggested.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I apologise to hon. Members that I had not given greater notice. It was only late in the morning that I found I could not, as I had hoped, raise the matter on one or other of the Clauses, and the only way of bringing it in order was to move a new Clause.
I agree that the Home Secretary has not had time to think it all out, but I should not agree that it is proper constitutional doctrine to think that the Governor-General goes on functioning in a Commonwealth country when the Monarch is present; it certainly is not the Canadian idea. I know that that is so from my knowledge of the facts. Whether it is the case in Australia that the Governor-General surrenders only some of the functions that he would discharge in the Queen's absence when she is present, I am not sure. Certainly in Canada the doctrine is held that the Queen eclipses altogether her deputy

when she is present and discharges all the functions of the Crown. It certainly is not true that the Governor-General is in all cases appointed for a fixed number of years.
I do not think the proposal would involve in any way the necessity to have a permanent Governor-General in this country. "Temporary," as far as I understand it, merely means "not total." It is anything short of complete incapacity; it could be any length of time; it could be one month, or six months.
4.30 p.m.
Indeed, one could imagine a situation which might develop during the present Queen's reign in which she might be for six months of one year in Australia or Canada and for six months in this country. Then she would be equally temporarily absent from both. Then the Governor-General, if we had one here, would be in exactly the same position as the Governor-General of Canada or of Australia.
I was sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) made his intervention. There is no party attitude on this matter from this side of the Committee. I was certainly not speaking for my party. It was an idea that I put forward personally. It seems to me that he really has got egalitarianism on the brain. To compare the egalitarianism of the sort which. I understand he does not like—that two people should be treated as equal—with the egalitarianism that two nations should be treated as equal is carrying his anti-egalitarian doctrine to ludicrous extremes.
I do not know how far the noble Lord keeps up with these matters, but what I was suggesting—namely, that there should be a Governor-General in this country—is wholly in line with the various Acts about Royal Titles. The present Queen is the first Monarch to have ascended the Throne with a different Royal Title in every Realm—a Royal Title settled by that Realm. This would be a small change to come in line with that. I will not press the matter. I agree that these steps cannot be taken except in very proper ways after great discussion. My point is not to make the change by this means but merely to leave the question open so that the change could be made in future.
This is not really such a very great change. If all references to Counsellors of State were dropped from all these Acts, the power of the Crown to appoint Counsellors of State would remain the same as it is today, because the Crown could appoint Counsellors of State before the first Act was passed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I hesitate to interrupt, tout we are discussing this matter in a somewhat informal manner. I have not checked that point, but there is the doctrine, which the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) will remember, that when a prerogative is canalised in legislation it is doubtful how far the pre-existing prerogative exists. That is another point which would require very serious consideration.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I thought that it was possible for the Royal Prerogative and a statutory power to run side by side, but I may well be wrong. I do not press the matter, but I hope that the Home Secretary will think about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.34 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As the House knows, this is a Bill which is laid before Parliament from time to time to provide the Post Office with the money it requires for capital development. The last similar Measure received the Royal Assent in July, 1952, and it was for the sum of £75 million.
This Bill differs from the previous one only in two respects. The first is in the sum of money involved. This time it is £125 million, or £50 million more. This is explained partly by the fact that the capital investment programme for the Post Office for 1954–55 and 1955–56 is expected to be higher than in recent years,

which in turn is accounted for partly by the fact that we hope that it will last for a slightly longer period, and also of course there has been a general increase in price levels.
The House will be pleased to hear that if this Bill is passed we hope in the next two years to be able to make a very considerable reduction in the number of people waiting for telephones, because, of the £125 million for which we are asking, £116 million is to be spent on the telephone service.
This sum also includes what we are spending on defence, but that is only a little over one-quarter of the total, which is a smaller percentage than in the last Bill. The annual capital expenditure of the Post Office has risen from £30 million in 1950–51 to an estimate of £55 million in 1953–54, so although naturally the Post Office, like every other Government Department, would like to be able to spend more money on capital equipment, I feel that I cannot complain that we have not had our fair share of the money which the country can afford to spend at this juncture.
The only other respect in which this Bill differs from the last one is that there are some additional provisions which enable the Treasury to have more flexibility in the way in which the money should be borrowed. Provision is made for borrowing by means of terminable annuities with a life of up to 20 years. That is the method that we have employed so far, but also this Bill provides for any other way by which money can be raised under the National Loans Act of 1939 for general Exchequer purposes. The Government have every intention of continuing the present method of borrowing by 20-year annuities, but in view of the increased rate at which Post Office capital development is taking place, it seems desirable that provision for raising money in other ways as well should be made if the need should arise.
The only effect of all this would be to bring the Post Office into line with other public and local authorities whose capital requirements are met by borrowing from the Exchequer. Those are the only two points in which the Bill differs from the previous one—

Mr. Ness Edwards: Only from the Exchequer?

Mr. Gammans: Yes. This Bill has been an occasion, by tradition, not only to consider capital development but also to discuss Post Office operations as a whole and to give some indication of the way in which the money for which we ask today will be spent. I have read all the debates and I find that in the past there has been a tendency for many Members to concentrate on what is called the Post Office surplus, which is the amount by which our income exceeds our expenditure in the commercial accounts.
It always seems very difficult for the Post Office to be right in what they do. If the surplus is too large, then the Post Office is apt to be criticised for acting as a tax collector for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have never seen very much validity in this argument. In so far as the Chancellor receives a surplus from the Post Office, or for that matter from any other trading Department, to that extent he is helping to balance the nation's accounts. After all, we are not dealing with reparations to a foreign Power. We are dealing with our own internal economy.
At the present time, however, no hon. Member need have any misgivings that the surplus is likely to be too large. In fact the surplus for last year is likely to be less than £5 million, which will be the smallest for 30 years, and in the current year we do not expect it to be any larger. In the last debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) in a most picturesque manner referred to me as the meek messenger of the Treasury. Then he recalled the days of his youth and reminded us of what he called the story of the classical deceit of the Old Testament when he said that the voice was the voice of the Post Office, but the hand was the hand of the Treasury. I am sorry to deprive the right hon. Gentleman of the chance for such eloquence, but I think he will agree today that this surplus is so small that it cannot be regarded as a surplus in the normal sense of the word, but only as a reasonable working balance for a Government Department which has an annual income of over £250 million.
During the last few years the Post Office, like every other part of our national life, has had to face the problem of increased costs, due to higher salaries and wages and higher costs of transport

and material. So it is with some considerable satisfaction I can say that, in spite of this, we have managed to keep the 2½d. stamp for internal postage and, although our telephone charges have risen, we can claim that by and large this country has the cheapest postage and the cheapest telephone service in the world.
In the last debate the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) raised the question of Post Office buildings. When the Government came into power two years ago the building industry was overloaded, and it was necessary to impose a temporary ban on the starting of new buildings other than houses. This naturally affected the Post Office. The ban was removed in 1952, but I must inform the House that there is a vast amount of arrears in building work to be done for the Post Office, both on the postal and the telephone side. I have tried to make an estimate of what it is likely to amount to and it is probably of the order of £60 million.
I am glad to say that this year we are spending £500,000 more on buildings than we did last year, and next year we shall be spending rather more than £1 million extra, and the year after we are hoping to increase it beyond that. In fact I can give the hon. Member for Keighley the exact figures in case he would like to have them. For the current year it is £6·1 million, next year it will be £7·7 million and the year after that we hope it will be £9·4 million.
This money is being used not only to meet the needs of telephone development but also to build some of the new buildings which are very much required on the postal side. I know that this is a question in which the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) takes a special interest. The position as regards postal buildings is specially acute, here in London in particular. As I said in reply to a question yesterday, in the West Central district of London, Wimpole Street, and in the South-West district, to which trade has come from the City of London in vast quantities, we are badly overcrowded. As I told the House yesterday, the only solution in Wimpole Street is a new office with access to the Post Office railway, and plans are being pushed ahead as fast as we can push them.


Incidentally, before we can build that office, a hybrid Bill will probably be needed.
It is appropriate that I should start reviewing the services provided by the Post Office by talking about the postal side. The G.P.O. is called upon to perform many and diverse functions, from providing telephones to paying old age pensions and from detecting people who evade their radio and television licences to providing beam radio-telephone services to the ends of the earth. Sometimes I think we forget that the prime responsibility of the Post Office is to deliver the mail. In fact, in many countries of the world this is about the only function performed by the Post Office, the rest either being farmed out to other Government Departments or done by private enterprise.
I hope the House will share the satisfaction I have that in spite of rising costs we have managed to keep the letter rate at 2½d. Few things in the world have risen less in price since the beginning of the war than the cost of sending a letter. In 1939 it was l½d., not 1d. as many people imagine. The penny post disappeared in 1918. In fact the only service I can think of which still costs the same today as it did in 1918 is the £5 fine for pulling the communication cord in a railway train. Almost everything else has gone up.
Here in the United Kingdom our internal postage rate is one of the cheapest in the world, and I hope we shall be able to keep it so. For example, in France the rate is not 2½ d. but 3½d., in Switzerland it is 4d., and in Sweden rather more than 4d. This is equally true of our external rates. For example, it costs 4d. to send a letter to France or to Switzerland and 7d. to send one back again. If one posts a letter to the United States by sea it costs 2½d. and 7d. to send one back to this country.
One word about the air services. As the House knows, we have what is called the all-up service to most countries in Europe. This means that letters go by air without any extra charge. During the past year we have been able to extend that service to two countries which before were left out of it—one is Iceland and the other is Poland.
While I am talking about our external services, the House might like to be reminded that the Post Office has been carrying on for some time a special campaign to try to deal with under-stamped letters, that is, with people who send letters with stamps of insufficient value on them, especially to Europe. It presents quite a serious problem. This year we have had a postmark slogan "Postage on letters for Europe—4d." Although the position is a little better, I cannot pretend that it is really satisfactory. We have pointed out to business firms and to chambers of commerce that if they really want to do business with customers on the Continent, the worst thing to do is to start by making the prospective customer pay a surcharge on an under-stamped letter. And they have to pay not merely our surcharge, but the local surcharge, which may be even heavier.
About 18 months ago we tried an experiment. We said, "We will put on the stamps ourselves and run the risk of not getting the money back." That has been done and I am glad to say that, by and large, people have turned out to be honest and we have got the money back. We can only do this, however, if business firms and private individuals will put their names and addresses on the backs of the envelopes. As the House knows, that is a common practice in America and in many other parts of the world, and I wish people would do it here.
In spite of all we have done, the number of under-stamped letters that go abroad to Europe alone is of the order of 15,000 a week. I have been looking at the statistics of the postal traffic and I find that since the end of the war, in 1945, the number of letters and parcels posted has increased by over 33⅓ per cent., and has now reached the astounding total of 9,000 million a year or, to put it in easier numbers, 25 million letters a day.

Mr. Ness Edwards: And packages?

Mr. Gammans: Yes. I should now like to say a word about the safeguarding of letters and mails, especially as this subject was raised in the House yesterday and there has been quite considerable Press comment on it. I have been reading correspondence in the newspapers. Correspondents write something


like this, "I was on such a platform the other night and I nearly fell over five bags of mail. What can you expect when these conditions prevail?" I should not like it to be thought for a moment that we are not deeply concerned about this matter. Of course we are, and we ought to be. But I ask the House to remember that the loss of a bag of mail makes news, as it should, whereas the number of mail-bags travelling round this country on any one day, as I told the House yesterday, is about one million. We must therefore keep this matter in some sort of perspective.
A very large percentage of mails go by rail for part of the journey. As I told the House yesterday, it has been long the practice that when mail goes by train it is the railway authorities who, under contract, are responsible for it, though naturally there is the closest possible cooperation between ourselves and the railways to see that the mails are properly safeguarded. As I told the House yesterday, our whole system of safeguarding mails has always been based on the assumption that this country, by and large, is a law-abiding country. If we have to envisage, as we did some time ago, armed gang robberies in the streets of London, these arrangements are not sufficient. If we have to envisage wilful destruction or pilfering the whole standard will have to be looked at. This, of course, raises something much larger than the subject of our debate today—that is the standard of morality of this country.
It is not merely the Post Office which is affected. Every side of our life is affected. I saw only this morning a report by the railway authorities that pilfering on the railways is eight times what it was before the war. This state of affairs prevails also in the docks and, incidentally, is indicated by the number of people who are in gaol. Perhaps rather more people ought to be there.
I do not want the House to assume that we have been complacent. There has been a pretty drastic overhaul of our arrangements in railway trains, on platforms and in every other way, but if we have to raise our standards of safeguard fundamentally we shall not be able to keep the 2½d. post. It will mean a vast increase in staff and expenditure. I hope that that will not happen. I am glad to say that our losses from mail bags are

tending to fall and the loss of registered letters and parcels has been practically halved since the end of the war.
I think that the postage stamps of the new reign have given very general satisfaction. We have certainly received many congratulations and almost no complaints, not only from philatelists and others in this country but from people all over the world.
This year the six millionth telephone was installed. This was a radio telephone linking the island of Stroma in the Pentland Firth, and it is an illustration of the vast advances which have been made in telephones over recent years. I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he went to this remote area and carried out the first conversation on this historic link.
It is an achievement of which the Post Office has some reason to be proud that the number of telephones now installed is double what it was before the war. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly knows only too well, that has happened at a time when he certainly did not succeed in obtaining from his Chancellor of the Exchequer all the money that he would have liked to spend. It was a great achievement to have done that and also to have repaired the ravages of war when there was hardly a telephone exchange in London that was not damaged or shaken and its delicate apparatus covered with dust. We are now installing telephones at a 50 per cent. faster rate than that at which they were installed in 1939.
The improvement in the telephone trunk and toll service is considerable; we have checked that mechanically. The average time that it takes to get an answer is 65 seconds, which is one-third better than the average time two years ago and even slightly better than it was before the war.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: That means from the time one rings up until one hears the ringing tone? Surely it does not mean until the moment somebody replies.

Mr. Gammans: No, that is something beyond the powers of the Post Office. That depends on the subscriber. He might be having a bath.
Extraordinary technical improvements have taken place in telephone development in recent years. They interested me


when I first came to this Department and perhaps the House would like me to mention some of them. Before the First World War there were very few long distance circuits in this country. In fact there were only two between London and Glasgow. They were carried on overhead wires, one conversation at a time, and if one was having a conversation with a friend in Glasgow one had the exclusive use of about 300 tons of copper.
Since that time we have had the telephone repeater, circuits underground, and the use of coaxial cables. The result is that today a pair of coaxial tubes can transmit no less than 600 telephone conversations at the same time. We hope to increase that number to 960 in the near future. There is also the possibility we shall be able to accommodate a television channel on that same link.
I believe that I mentioned in my speech last year, and so did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly in his, the repeaters under the sea. Some very valuable work on an improved type of deep sea repeater is now going on at Dollis Hill. While all this has been taking place there have been considerable economies in staff. In 1923, when we had only one million instead of six million telephones, we had 18,000 men in our engineering department. Today, when the number of telephones has risen by six times, the number of men has risen only by three times.
I should like to say a few words about the work that is going on at Dollis Hill research station to develop the electronic exchange. Many hon. Members have no doubt seen in automatic exchanges great banks of machinery which give clicks and clacks and are the means by which telephone connections are made. The newest development which is likely to take place is that all these electro-mechanical switches will be replaced by electronic valves with no moving parts at all. These developments have come from the striking advances made in electronics during the war. They will mean great simplification in exchange equipment and, of course, in exchange buildings, and will mean much speedier connection for subscribers with less possibility of getting a wrong number or being cut off. I understand that even this is only a transitional stage and that the ultimate

development may be by means of a piece of equipment called a transistor which is hardly bigger than the stub of a pencil.
The House will expect me to say something about the shared service and the waiting list. In fact, I think that about half the letters which hon. Gentlemen write to me are about some constituent who wants a telephone, but cannot get one. Certainly half the Questions asked me in this House are about waiting lists, or about someone who does not want shared service.
Today, as the House knows, new subscribers and removing subscribers have to give an undertaking that they will share their lines if they are required to. As I told the House yesterday, that is not a satisfactory arrangement, and I do not pretend that it is. Our policy is, at the earliest possible opportunity, to give subscribers a free choice. I believe that shared service has come to stay for those who want it because it is cheaper, but I cannot introduce freedom of choice until we have drastically reduced the waiting list. Shared service has stood the country in very good stead. Because of it, some 300,000 people have gone on the telephone who otherwise would not have been able to do so. Hon. Members know that normally the subscriber on shared service gets his own number and that only his bell rings when he is rung up.
This idea of shared service—which in this country is an innovation arising out of our post-war difficulties—is common to most other countries in the world. I made inquiries regarding the position in the United States, for example, and I was staggered to learn that in that country 70 per cent. of the residential subscribers have a shared service of two, and 30 per cent. a shared service of four or more people. I know that the conditions in America are different and that that country has vast rural areas and longer distances, but these figures show that a large percentage of urban subscribers must be getting this service.
The waiting list now stands at the figure of 383,000. That is 60,000 down in the past year, and I hope that with the additional money which I am asking for today this rate of reduction will go on.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: While the hon. Gentleman is on the question of shared service, can he say what steps


have been taken with regard to separate accounting because that has been one of the difficulties in getting people to take advantage of it.

Mr. Gammans: That is perfectly true. There was a time when people had to agree among themselves as to who should pay what for local calls on the dialling system. That, of course, did not apply to trunk calls, but today the higher percentage of shared service subscribers have their own metering facilities and their own separate accounts. I hope that the old arrangement will quickly disappear.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Did the hon. Gentleman say that the waiting list had been reduced by 60,000 or 16,000?

Mr. Gammans: Sixty thousand.
When we talk about reducing the waiting list, we should remember that it is not merely a question of the people now on the waiting list. We must also think of the new applicants, who in the last quarter amounted to 102,000, on top of the back-log, whereas before the war the average number of new subscribers was only 60,000 a quarter.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Can the Minister say how long, on average, people have to wait for telephones?

Mr. Gammans: I was about to come to that. The trouble is that there is not an average. I want to make a technical point which I think will answer the hon. Gentleman's question. Very often people write and complain that they have been waiting in a particular district for years, and that they have heard of a case in the next district, or sometimes very near to them, where someone who applied quite recently got a telephone within a few months.
The explanation is quite simple. In order to connect a subscriber two things are necessary. The first is that there must be a spare place on the telephone exchange to which to connect him, and the other is a spare pair of wires in a cable which serves his particular district. In some cases both these things are there, and in others only one is there, but very often, by a simple cable scheme costing not too much money, an applicant can be connected up.
In some areas, however, the exchange is completely full, and the only thing we can do to put that matter right is to build a new one. When we get to that stage—and this is true of some of our industrial areas—the only solution is to build a new exchange. That means the acquisition of the land, the erection of the building and the designing of equipment, and I am afraid that takes some little time.
There is one other matter I wish to deal with, and that is the density of telephones. We are still lagging behind the United States. In fact, we only come sixth on the list. The United States has 29 telephones per 100 people, whereas we have only 11·4 per 100, with Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and Denmark coming in between.
Hon. Members often ask me questions about rural telephones, and, of course, there has been a very great development in these areas in recent years. But I must tell hon. Members, in case they do not know it, that this is a branch of the service on which we lose an awful lot of money. For example, on every rural kiosk there is an average loss of £40 a year. But we recognise the needs of the rural areas—telephones are all the more needed in those areas because they are rural—and in the last two years, 2,000 additional kiosks have been put up. In the last five years, 6,000 additional kiosks have been erected, and now there are 20,000 altogether.
Before I finish with telephones, perhaps I may deal with a point raised in the last debate with regard to Government Department telephones. This is a hardy annual, and I am always being asked questions about it. Let me make it quite clear that there is not the slightest difference to the commercial accounts of the Post Office when the user is a Government Department, because in its commercial accounts the Post Office has always taken credit for the service it renders to Government Departments. Therefore, there is no question of the Post Office charging a private user a higher rate in order to pay for the service it renders to a Government Department.
However, it was agreed last June that, in order to encourage economy on the telephone, as from 1st April this year the Service Departments, the Ministry of Supply and the Treasury, who between


them make the greatest use of the telephone and telegraph services—in fact, 70 per cent.—should pay cash, and that the cost of these services should be borne on their Estimates.
As I have said, it makes no difference at all to our commercial accounts, and, in addition, very stringent instructions have been given to all Government Departments to be more economical in the use of the telephone, especially on trunk lines. I was hoping today to be able to give the House the effect of some of these economies, but it is too early to say. However, I have no doubt that the effect of it will be that the telephone will be used less.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Can the Minister say whether the amount credited to the commercial accounts is related in any way to the actual use made of these services by the Government Departments?

Mr. Gammans: In the cases I have just mentioned, the actual accounting will be call by call, in exactly the same way as the hon. Member and I have to pay for our calls. In the other Departments, it will be based on a test sample.
I now come to a rather less pleasant story. It is the story of the Inland Telegraph Service, and that, at the moment, is our most difficult and perplexing problem. In 1953–54 this service is estimated to run at a deficit of £4·8 million out of a total expenditure of £8·5 million. To put it another way, the average telegram produces 2s., but it costs the Post Office 5s. to send and deliver it, and so we are losing 3s. on every telegram we accept.
Unfortunately there is nothing new about this. It has been going on for years. What is serious is that it is growing. In 1938 the loss was £1 million, or about 5d. a telegram. By 1947 it had risen to £3 million, or 1s. 3d. a telegram, and it has gone on rising ever since. From a purely financial point of view this is a service which the Post Office would like to drop altogether, but obviously that cannot happen. The inland telegraph service is needed on strategic grounds and also because it is the only rapid method of communication with people who are not on the telephone.
In the last debate an hon. Member referred to it as "the poor man's telephone." Whether that is true I do not know, but it is to me a curious fact, that 50 per cent. of all the telegrams sent are of a business character. This goes to show, that quite apart from private needs, the business community of this country needs an efficient telegraph service. The trouble is that year by year we are seeing a steady decline in the traffic. In 1952–53 it was 5·7 per cent. down as compared with the previous year, and this year the decline is 4 per cent.

Mr. W. R. Williams: The Minister might wish to explain that this drop in the traffic is in no way due to a lack of efficiency. In fact the telegraph service has increased in efficiency at the same time as receipts have gone down.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member has forestalled what I was about to say. The main reason is that more and more people are going on the telephone, and the other reason is because of the increase in the private telegraph service which handles such a large part of our commercial and industrial traffic. It is certainly not due to any lack of efficiency on the part of the staff or equipment.
With this loss of traffic have come gradually increased costs, especially the cost of telegram deliveries. There has been a general increase in wages and salaries, partly due to the abolition of the apprentice grades of boy messengers and girl probationers. In 1951 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly as Postmaster-General attempted to reduce this deficit by increasing telegraph rates, but unfortunately, owing to a further rise in costs, the deficit continues to grow.
The Select Committee on Estimates in its 11th Report in the last Session, when it sat under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), referred at great length to this difficult problem, and recommended that the Post Office and the Treasury should try to produce a plan for bringing about some significant reduction in the deficit. It is not an easy problem, it is very difficult. The choice lies between making, or trying to make, this service pay on its own or regarding telecommunications as a whole and covering the loss by some other branch; as we do on the postal side where the cost of letters delivered to houses in the country, which is probably


something like 1s., is borne by the cheaper cost of delivering letters in the towns. I am not today in a position—I wish I were—to make any definite statement on the matter but I hope to be able to do so before long.
I do not propose to deal with broadcasting in the general sense, because it would be out of order for me to do so, since the B.B.C. is financed by a special Parliamentary Vote. Nor do I propose to talk about the policy in broadcasting. Hon. Gentlemen must contain themselves until 3 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. However I should like to mention two aspects for which the Post Office is directly responsible. We provide links for the B.B.C. for both their sound and television services and we are responsible for collecting licences, and detecting the evasions.
It is a wonderful tribute to the popularity of television, and also to the prosperity of this country, that in the past year the number of new television sets which have been licensed has increased by nearly one million and now numbers 2½ million. The average cost of a set is about £80 and I am glad to feel that so many of our countrymen are in the happy position of being able to spend this sum of money.
There will always be a certain number of people who try to avoid paying their wireless licence, but I have no reason to suppose that the number is very large. The licence is a small sum of money for which good value is received. In fact it is really a microscopic amount which people have to pay to get a radio and television service. On the television side we have recently developed a new type of detector van. This was done as an experiment, but it has been so successful that we are having a good few more constructed. I might describe it as a "robot eye," or "Scotland Yard on wheels." It can track down any television set which is operating.
We are sometimes asked why we do not have a system whereby a set could not be sold unless the buyer produced a licence, or that the cost of the licence be added to the cost of the set. This looks very attractive at first sight, but it would be a difficult system to work and it would certainly make the revenue of the B.B.C. subject to very violent fluctuations. Some people would get out of

paying altogether, because some sets are made from second-hand parts or from bits bought separately. We should certainly have to register all radio dealers and compel them to operate this system, a prospect which I do not view with favour.
I come now to interference. There are two sorts which we experience. One is from foreign stations, some of which are working quite illegally on wavelengths not permitted to them or at a strength not allowed by any international convention. Some of these stations are in Eastern Europe, and although we have made many protests, our protests have the habit of bouncing off the Iron Curtain.
The other sort of interference, especially to television, is from machinery here at home. My noble Friend the Postmaster-General was under an obligation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, to appoint technical committees. Three of them have been at work. One, dealing with motor cars, reported last year, and from 1st July of this year all new motor cars have to be fitted with suppressors. I am frequently asked why we do not make it compulsory to fit suppressors on old cars. I can only give the answer which I gave in the House yesterday, that it is no use making Regulations unless we have the machinery to enforce them. Such a Regulation would mean an army of inspectors poking their noses under the bonnets of old cars to see if suppressors had been fitted. The other two technical committees are dealing with refrigerators and small motors. They have not yet reported, and we cannot hurry them too much, because this is a very difficult question. I should be misleading the House if I gave the impression that this problem is likely to be solved very quickly or easily.
I would mention briefly one side of Post Office work about which very little is known, and that is the radio service we provide for ships at sea. Round our coasts there are 10 radio stations which provide ships at sea with bearings, weather reports and give telephonic and telegraphic communication with the shore. Also, they are able to pick up distress signals. During the present year up to now we have dealt with no less than 223 distress signals from ships at sea. One spectacular side is the medical service provided for the ships, especially trawlers,


which do not carry a doctor. There have been 138 medical cases this year where men at sea have got in touch with the shore through the Post Office to get advice from a doctor. Only last year I opened one of these stations at Wick, and I was impressed with the work that they are doing.
I should like to give one example. The other day the Land's End station received a message from the master of a foreign tanker saying that the wife of one of the crew was about to give birth to a baby and what should he do about it. He was put in touch through the Post Office with a local doctor, who gave instructions on the telephone. The last we heard was that mother and child were doing well.

Mr. Ness Edwards: How was the father?

Mr. Gammans: We were not asked to diagnose for the father. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) suggested the other day that I should talk about delivery masters instead of (postmasters. He was not so far wrong.
There is not enough time to refer to all the activities of the Post Office. In addition to the branches I have mentioned today, there are the savings bank, and what might be called the agency services that we perform on behalf of other Government Departments, like the payment of old age pensions, children's allowances and tobacco coupons, which have been put on to the Post Office by successive Governments because they could not think of any other Government Department to do them. Last year, for example, we paid no less than £378 million in pensions and £172 million in family allowances. The total turn-over of all these transactions amounts to the astonishing figure of £3,700 million a year.
I should not like to conclude without saying a word about the staff. Nearly half the Civil Service is employed in the Post Office in a vast diversity of activities and in every city, in every town, in every village, and in many hamlets. My own personal experience in the Post Office coincides with that of any Member of the House who has ever served in the Post Office, including Mr. Speaker, the present Leader of the Opposition and the Leader

of the House. They all will bear out what I am about to say, that we have enjoyed the experience of working with a body of men and women who have such a wonderful spirit of public service.
The Post Office has the advantage that it is one of the oldest Departments of State, and it can draw upon a tradition of service to the community which only a continuous history such as this can give. Perhaps the best proof of all this is the Post Office comes more into the daily lives of our people than all the other Government Departments put together.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but this Bill appears to ask for an additional sum of money, and a review of the general activities of the Post Office does not come into that.

Mr. Ness Edwards: On that Ruling, I should like to say that we have had a very long description of the activities of the Post Office arising out of the spending of this money, and it is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not interrupting about that, but about this historical review which we are being given at the moment. That does not seem to come within this Bill.

Mr. Gammans: I was finishing what I was about to say. It has been the tradition, when presenting a Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Bill in this House, for some attempt to be made to describe what the money was going to be spent on, and to give a sort of general review of the Post Office.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not objecting to that. To debate what the money is wanted for is certainly in order. I may have misunderstood the Minister, but I thought he was giving an historical review of the history of the Post Office.

Mr. Gammans: I am sorry if I gave you that impression, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but what I was saying was—

Mr. Ness Edwards: The Minister has been concerned with describing the general activities of the Post Office which will be continued with the assistance of this money. Having done that, surely the House is not going to be precluded from questioning the Minister on what he has said, or in dealing with certain matters


of current happenings in the Post Office because you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have given the Ruling that only new matters may be considered.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I did not say anything about that. I was talking about the general history of the Post Office.

Mr. Gammans: May I leave the history alone and come to the present? The point I want to make is that the Post Office comes more into contact with the public than any other Government Department or, I suppose, all the other Government Departments put together. If, therefore, we are inefficient in our duties or our servants do not serve the public as they ought, I should certainly hear about it, especially as we are the one nationalised industry which is subject to Parliamentary questions on day-to-day operations.
I think we can claim to have maintained the high standards which all of us associate automatically with the Post Office. In asking the House to vote this money I do so with the assurance that it will be convinced that the money will be well spent.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I must congratulate the Assistant Postmaster-General on having made a speech which did not contain a single party point. This is the first time that I have ever heard him do so. It shows that he has absorbed the atmosphere which seems to get everyone engrossed in the Post Office. Indeed, he discharged his duty like the chairman of a big business concern, and he did it with pride and confidence. I think this is one of the best recommendations of monopoly with public accountability that we have heard from the Government side of the House during the last two years.
What I am pleased about is that, in discharging his duty, the hon. Gentleman looked at the Post Office with a much greater sense of our responsibility for it. I hope we will take the Post Office out of party conflict, and look at it as a big business undertaking whose job it is to serve the community. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that this is the one nationalised undertaking where there is public accountability. In my view, a public monoply is tolerable only when we

get that public and Parliamentary accountability. As this may be a matter for consideration with some of the other public undertakings, I should like to give my own experience and then ask the hon. Gentleman whether he agrees or not.
It does not matter what happens in the Post Office and on what this money is to be spent, any citizen can through his Member, raise a complaint in this House about the spending of the money. It is true that many Questions on the subject of the Post Office are addressed to the Assistant Postmaster-General who has to deal with them in this House, but personally I never found that an embarrassment in getting an efficient organisation inside the Post Office. In fact, I know of nothing that will keep public servants more on their toes than the knowledge that they are liable to have their conduct questioned in this House. Having made that remark, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that public accountability in this House tends to greater efficiency and does not embarrass him in his duty to Parliament or to the undertaking over which he presides.
The Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General have now been in office for a little over two years. I wonder whether they have yet been able to sit back and look at the great business empire of the Post Office. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Post Office employs nearly half the civil servants in the country. It invades every section of our lives, and has multifarious duties and activities. Have the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend been able to look at the whole Department to determine whether the time has come to recast the organisation and relate its activities in a different way to the House and the Treasury, and generally to examine it to see whether the organisation is keeping pace with modern ideas and requirements?

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman arguing that we should cease to have the Post Office as a Department and make it a trading organisation like the other corporations? If that is so, it seems contrary to what he was saying earlier.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I should first make the general premise that, whatever form the organisation takes, there should be Parliamentary and public accountability,


but whether it should be an instrument of taxation, a business undertaking, or a corporation in a different form, or whether Post Office activities should be divided between a number of corporations, is a matter which requires investigation. Prior to the war, the matter was investigated by the famous Bridgeman Committee. I am suggesting that in the spending of this money—but I must be careful here. I must say, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that after we have had a long historical account of the activities of the Post Office, it is a little limiting at this stage of the proceedings to have a Ruling that subsequent speakers in the debate must confine themselves to the future rather than the past.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have not made any such Ruling. Clearly the Bill provides for an additional sum of money to be spent. The objects in respect of which that money is asked for are clearly in order. What I considered not to be in order was the historical survey, and that was the point to which I drew attention. I was about to draw attention to the fact that the constitution of the Post Office might be a very appropriate subject at other times, but it does not arise under the Bill.

Mr. Ness Edwards: With all respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, surely the subject of the form of organisation which is to be responsible for the spending of the money is in order on the Second Reading, for it has always been so in the past. It would be astonishing now, after so many years of this form of discussion, if we suddenly had a new Ruling which limited us in this respect. However, I accept your Ruling, and I recognise that this is a Second Reading debate, and I will keep as closely as I can to the rules of order.
With regard to the expenditure of the new capital sum, are we satisfied that the form of organisation is the right one, or ought we to have a new Bridgeman Committee to look at the organisation and make recommendations as to the liability of the Post Office towards the Treasury? During the war all this was altered, and we have not yet got on to a permanent basis. When the matter was raised in a similar debate two years ago it was ruled in order, and I again put to the hon. Gentleman the question whether the

time has arrived for a new Bridgeman Committee to look into the whole business.
To come to some more detailed matters, I notice that defence works are again provided for in the capital sum. I should like to know how much is really for defence and where we can find it. Is it under the heading of telephones or telegraphs or posts? The money is required to continue the job which was commenced under the last Money Act. We are entitled to know whether all the money previously voted has been spent, how much more will be required for defence works, and whether or not the repayment of the capital sums for those defence works will be met by the commercial accounts of the Post Office. This is a serious matter. Out of the last sum of money that we voted, £25 million was devoted to defence. I do not know the precise amount devoted to defence in this instance. Perhaps the Assistant Postmaster-General can tell us that.

Mr. Gammans: I told the right hon. Gentleman that it is approximately one-quarter.

Mr. Ness Edwards: A quarter of £125 million? That is very much more than it was two years ago. I am concerned about how the money is to be repaid and whether the cost will fall on the commercial accounts. If it falls on the commercial accounts, we are doing the Post Office a great injustice.

Mr. Gammans: Perhaps I might answer that now. The Service Departments have to pay ordinary commercial rates for any services which the Post Office render them, in exactly the same way as other customers do.

Mr. Ness Edwards: But we are talking about capital sums, structures and new cables. Surely it is not suggested that the Services are going to be charged for new cables. In the commercial accounts one sees no repayment of capital to the Post Office. The matter requires to be looked into very carefully. I do not want to be awkward about these matters, because I handled some of them when I was Postmaster-General, but we have now reached a stage when about £60 million in toto is carried on the Post Office Vote for which there has been no capital repayment, and this has to be repaid by the Post Office. Perhaps we can iron this out at the Committee stage.
I now turn to the division of the capital as between telephones and telegraphs. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon getting the Chancellor to loosen the purse strings. The Post Office has been starved far too long. Since 1939 it has been living on a shoe-string, and every Postmaster-General since that time has had to "carry the can" because he has been unable to develop the services as they ought to have been developed. One point which the hon. Gentleman did not bring out was how much of the capital is required for the inter-connecting links for the B.B.C. How many special co-axial cables are to be laid down to link the various television transmitters and sound transmitters? How much is to be spent upon the radio network, which I understand is a Post Office liability?
It is unfortunate that we have not before us the proposals for the extension of both the television and the sound services. As the hon. Gentleman said, the White Paper will come out tomorrow, and we do not yet know what is the degree of extension of this service. The hon. Gentleman has not told us what is the degree of additional responsibility to be carried by the Post Office in connection with the new construction works, the new cables and the new radio links required to make the White Paper proposals realistic. I wish we knew a little more about that, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us.
There is one other point, to which he also referred, concerning co-axial cables, which represent an extremely expensive operation. How much are we charging the B.B.C. for the hire of these cables? Is the amount adequate? Are they paying what they ought to pay for their use? Are they paying an adequate amount for the radio links? We ought to know, because the Post Office ought not to be subsidising the B.B.C, and the B.B.C. ought not to be subsidising the Post Office. These are important matters on which we ought to have information, and I am sure that, when we see the White Paper, we shall certainly want to know what amount of this new capital is required to carry out the programme to be envisaged in the White Paper which we are to have tomorrow.
Now let me come to one or two small points. With regard to the public telephone service, I was extremely pleased

to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he would be able to start on the building of new telephone exchanges. As he well knows, the telephone exchanges have been the limiting factor, especially in the Development Areas. In the past, in dealing with what were called the Distressed Areas, both parties agreed to take work to the people in order to revive these areas. They were to be given new factories, and a considerable amount of capital was to be spent on them. The unfortunate thing was that we did not build telephone exchanges at the time, because the cables, the copper and other materials, and the labour were not available, and now it appears to me that these areas are lagging behind much more than any other part of the country, except, perhaps, the bombed cities, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred.
I should like to know how far this particular programme is going forward in the Development Areas, because of the extremely pressing need for telephones as a part of the business necessities in those areas. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the capital made available is adequate for the purpose which he has in mind. It is no use having more capital than one can use with the forces at one's disposal, and the uplifting of the technical side of the Post Office is quite a difficult matter for the technical personnel. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that there is no limitation as far as capital is concerned with regard to the expected improvement of the telephone service of this country.
I come now to a matter to which every Postmaster-General or Assistant Postmaster-General has had to refer for the last 20 or 30 years—the telegraph service. In this connection, I have the deepest sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. I read with very great interest the examination of this problem that took place elsewhere by a committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson). This is a matter of policy; it is not a matter to be decided by civil servants, and I think it ought to be decided, not from the point of view of party advantage, but on grounds of social interest.
If the telegraph service is to be maintained as a social necessity, then the losses ought not to be carried by the Post


Office, because the more the telephone service grows, the greater will be the loss on the telegraphs. It may be said, in regard to the telegrams on which there is a loss, that the Press telegrams ought to carry a greater charge. I know that the answer will be immediately that we should then drive them on to the private wires and the traffic would go right down. It is a problem of very great complexity. This is the only means whereby a man without a telephone can communicate in an emergency, in times of crisis and domestic tragedy, with someone else who is without a telephone. Of course, in war-time or apprehended war-time, there is also the defence consideration.
I do not think that this ought to be a matter of party division. I do not think any single party should accept responsibility for deciding what is to be done about this, and I would throw out the suggestion that it might be as well if what was to happen to the telegraph service were decided by an outside committee, an all-party committee, or at any rate in that sort of way, because it is not a matter over which there should be party political controversy. [An HON. MEMBER: "A Bridgeman Committee?"] I have no objection to a Bridgeman Committee, but I think the social—

Mr. W. R. Williams: I take it that my right hon. Friend is expressing merely personal opinions in regard to these special committees and the need for them? I am very doubtful whether I could go all the way with him in suggesting a general review and re-organisation of the Post Office, because I do not think it is necessary.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid my hon. Friend is not quite alive to the point I am putting forward in regard to the telegraph service, which has a growing deficit that is bound to get bigger and bigger, with the traffic getting smaller and smaller. Whether or not this service should be preserved, how it should be preserved and who should bear the cost if it is to be preserved, whether it should be borne on the rest of the services, thus reducing the funds available for the payment of wages in other parts of the service, or whether it should be covered by means of general taxation—all these are matters that require consideration on their merits. My own view is that this

matter should be examined objectively by a committee without bringing it into party conflict, whatever decision arises from that examination.
With regard to Dollis Hill, there is magnificent equipment there which is part of a very expensive organisation. I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General could not hope to cover all the activities of the Post Office in a short period of time, but can he tell us whether the Dollis Hill organisation is really close enough to the ground and whether its activities are related to the immediate problems of the Post Office rather than the distant ones. I merely ask the question.
I have not seen Dollis Hill for a very long time, but I know that it is capable of producing very great results in addition to the submarine repeater about which we have heard a great deal. There is the development of the transistor, which is capable of completely revolutionising telecommunications. The transistor will very much change the way in which this money would normally be spent, because the exchanges themselves could be smaller and the circuits much simpler. This device would almost produce a revolution in the electronics industry.
I now turn to the security of the mails. I noticed today a very balanced short editorial in the "News Chronicle" which is couched in responsible language. This is a worry which every head of the Post Office has had. I was worried very much by the reports which used to reach me about the losses which occurred from day to day from all sorts of causes. It is quite true that mail bags lie unattended at railway stations. It is quite true that mail bags are left in unlocked railway vans to which anyone can have access.
Having regard to the slight increase which has taken place in the number of robberies, I should have thought that a strengthening of the investigation branch was necessary. I quite agree with the hon. Member's general proposition that if we have to operate on the basis that we are living in a gangster-ridden country, then the 2½d. stamp will become a 1s. stamp, but surely the things which have taken place in the last 12 months require a strengthening of the security organisation. That is all I say about it. I know


it is a difficult proposition. We have to decide whether or not it is better to put up with these losses than to have an organisation which will cost more than the saving.
On the other hand, we have to assume that by and large in this service and in this country people are disposed to be honest—and by and large they are. The amount of thieving is extremely small. I see that the "News Chronicle" talks about two bags a day out of a million. But it is the two bags which get the advertisement; the million are never mentioned. We should not allow any single thing to upset the faith of the people of this country in the honesty and integrity of this great Post Office of ours. While I am not pressing the point, I think there is some apprehension about this matter. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend are aware of it and are trying to see what is the best thing to do in the circumstances.
We are very glad to assist the hon. Gentleman to get this money. We only wish that the Treasury would let him have a bit more. We only wish he could make greater progress in providing more telephones, more rural kiosks, and more telephone lines for farmers. In all those things we shall try to assist him, and he will not do better than we wish him to do in the application of the money which is paid to him by this Bill.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I join in the tributes which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) have paid to the postal services generally. I do not think any Department maintains a higher standard or stands in higher reputation with the general public.
I venture to address the House because I had the honour to be chairman of a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee which investigated certain aspects of Post Office activities last summer, notably the telegraph service, to which both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Caerphilly have referred. I could not help feeling that my hon. Friend skated over the subject very lightly. Quite clearly it causes him a great deal of worry and anxiety, but I still feel that he might have gone into it in more depth. I shall not go into the causes

beyond saying, in the words of the Bridgeman Committee, that the service is
between the upper and nether millstones of an expanding Telephone Service
and an efficient postal organisation.
The main reason for the losses is staff costs per telegram, which were 11·4d. in 1938–39 and in this current year are 42·2d. That accounts for practically the whole loss. Incidentally, this reflects well on the technical ability in the Post Office in that transmission costs have hardly gone up at all.
My hon. Friend did not refer to possible remedies. We asked the Post Office to give us a list of suggestions as to how this deficit could be reduced. It is quite hopeless to expect to abolish the deficit altogether, but it can be reduced, and perhaps it may interest the House if I hastily summarise these suggestions. The first suggestion was to raise the minimum charge for a 10-word telegram from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d.

Mr. Hobson: On a point of order. I should like to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Will it be in order for the House to discuss various alternatives by which to reduce the deficit on the telegraph services?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): This Bill is only to raise further money, and I suppose that if the deficit is reduced it will not be necessary to raise so much money. It could be linked with the Bill in that way, provided the hon. Member does not go into it in too much detail.

Mr. Nicholson: I will hastily add that by raising the charge from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. the deficit could be reduced from £4·6 million, which was the figure given to us—although my hon. Friend's figure was a little higher—to £2·7 million.

Mr. Hobson: On a point of order. I do not wish to get into controversy with the Chair, but I should like to point out respectfully that the Bill deals precisely with an application for capital for investment and not for purposes of revenue.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Of course the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has far more knowledge of the Post Office book-keeping than I have, but in Government Departments is not revenue and capital pretty often lumped together in the accounts?

Mr. Nicholson: I do not want to transgress the Rules. Another suggestion entails deferred traffic at a cheaper rate, which would also reduce the deficit but not by so much. Further, if we were to double the rates the traffic would fall by 30 per cent. and would reduce the deficit to £1·9 million. Finally, if we were to combine the deferred service at 1s. 6d. with various other alterations, the deficit could be reduced to £2·5 million. I merely mention those as examples showing that suggestions have been made as to how this deficit could be reduced.

Mr. Champion: Will the hon. Member tell us if, in these figures which he is giving us from his experience as chairman of the sub-committee, the aim is a loss of revenue, following a fall in receipts as a result of the increased charges?

Mr. Nicholson: In view of what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) said, I did not want to go into detail, but that is one of the major factors. It is the sad fact that increasing traffic in the telegraph services would only increase the deficit. That may appear rather ridiculous, but it is a fact that if we increase the traffic we increase the deficit. The aim should be to decrease the traffic, and one of the best ways of doing that is by increasing the rates, which also operates in the other direction by increasing the proportion of receipts.
I want to speak of the view which the country and the Government take of this deficit. It cannot be treated lightly. It cannot be put off from year to year, because it really matters. Somebody has to pay for it, and, in my view, the answer to the question, "Who pays?" is this: first, the Exchequer pays in that the Post Office contribution to the Exchequer is by that much diminished. Alternatively, or perhaps in conjunction with the former, the general public pays in that postal charges tend to be raised as the deficit increases, or, at any rate, the deficit militates against any reduction in postal charges. Thirdly, it cannot be healthy for the national economy. It must contribute towards inflationary pressure if money is wasted and men and materials are occupied in an unremunerative way.
I find the situation exceedingly disquieting. Intrinsically, in hard cash, I find it disquieting; I find it disquieting

that several million pounds—perhaps, one, two or three million pounds—are being lost on Government account every year without anything being done about it, and I also find it disquieting in that it shows how the Post Office and the Treasury approach the problem.
So far as the Post Office is concerned, I find it disquieting for the following reasons: This matter has drifted on year after year with a steadily increasing deficit, and neither party in the State has done anything about it. It reflects very badly on the present and past administrations of the Post Office. It is disquieting, secondly, because in the course of the evidence it was given out that the Post Office were afraid of making too big a surplus—my hon. Friend indicated that he shared that view, if I did not misunderstand him—because it means that the Post Office would then be shot at for making a profit in what is really a social service and there would be demands for reductions in charges. That came out in the evidence, and I can give my hon. Friend the references if he wishes to intervene. It reflects very badly upon him and on his noble Friend that there should be a feeling that it is not healthy for the Post Office to show too big a surplus.

Mr. Gammans: It is not a question whether it is healthy for the Post Office to make a surplus. I was only referring in a somewhat indirect way to the fact that any Postmaster-General who shows a large surplus is called a "stooge" of the Treasury while if he does not show any surplus at all he is called a bad administrator. We are now in the position of being neither one nor the other, but I would not like my hon. Friend to think that because of what I said it is my ambition to run the Post Office so inefficiently that it comes out with a loss.

Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend has given the case away. He said that he was in the happy state of being here without a very big surplus, but I should like him to come here and say to the public, "I have made a big surplus. Therefore, I am able to make a reduction in charges." I do not like this feeling that it does not matter so much there being a loss on one commercial account because the balance is made up on another.
Fourthly—and this is the major cause of my disquiet—we could not get any answer from the Post Office whether they had any idea as to the level that the deficit would have to reach before it was imperative to deal with it. They have given much thought to it and have produced suggestions, but there was no idea on the part of the Post Office as to when—

Mr. Ness Edwards: On a point of order. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to attack civil servants, who have no right of reply at all, especially on questions of policy which are a matter for the Minister? Is it not the custom for hon. Members not to do that sort of thing?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite simple. The Minister is here to answer and the civil servants are not blamed. It is the Minister's fault. He is the one that we blame here.

Mr. Nicholson: I am summarising evidence that was printed and given to this House for all of us to read. I am not attacking the civil servants. They have given the official viewpoint and I am attacking the official viewpoint for which my hon. Friend is responsible in this House. I am not attacking them but the answers that they were ordered by the Minister to give.

Mr. Wallace: I agree that the hon. Member is referring to what is in the Report but he is not quoting that Report, and by implication that is a criticism of what he now describes as "the official view" from the civil servants.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The point is that the civil servants are presumed to take orders from the Minister. We can say anything we like to the Minister because the civil servants obey his orders.

Mr. W. R. Williams: It would be to the advantage of the House to allow the hon. Gentleman to continue his speech. He has already shown so much inconsistency that he will argue himself to a standstill before he is finished.

Mr. Hobson: Will it be in order now for us to discuss fully the Estimates Committee's Report?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, it cannot be fully discussed. The hon. Member is trying to make a point which is at issue in the evidence.

Mr. Nicholson: I should be the last person to attack civil servants as individuals, because they have no chance to reply, but I thought I was right in putting to the House my conclusions on the evidence given to the House in the Select Committee's Report which has been given to us and is available to every hon. Member. I am not attacking civil servants but am attacking my hon. Friend, and I am very surprised that any hon. Member on the other side should think anything different. If I have been guilty of any inconsistency it will no doubt be shown. I am attacking the official viewpoint which is represented in this House by my hon. Friend on behalf of the Post Office. Does any hon. Member disagree with that?
I leave the Post Office viewpoint and turn to the Treasury, which is intimately connected with this problem. We also examined the Treasury. They said they had also discussed the matter and that it was obviously a very worrying situation. They displayed the same fear of too big a Post Office surplus, but said it was mainly a matter for the Post Office and they were reluctant to intervene in commercial accounts.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order. Is the Assistant Postmaster-General to be made responsible for answering for the evidence of the Treasury?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I saw a Treasury representative on the Bench. He might be prepared to answer.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I have no doubt that the Assistant Postmaster-General will seek to deal with the whole debate. I would stress that Ministers speak for the Government as a whole, and that any attempt to separate them in this way is not consistent with our normal practice. While I am on my feet, might I say, so far as the Treasury witnesses before the Select Committee were concerned, that Ministers accept full responsibility? I hope my hon. Friend will not express a contrary view.

Mr. Nicholson: Perhaps I might be allowed to continue my speech. I was endeavouring to make a serious contribution on a serious matter. The fact that only a few million pounds are involved, compared with the astronomical budgets that we have, may make them seem not to


be worth bothering about, but £2 million is worth considering not only for their own sake, but because the way in which an avoidable loss of £2 million is treated by the Treasury throws a significant light on many other aspects of Administration. I am criticising the Treasury for the view they took on the deficit of the telegraph service. The Treasury have not a policy—

Mr. Hobson: On a point of order. I am sorry to have to get up again, but am I to understand that it will now be perfectly in order for any of us to discuss the Post Office accounts apart from the Bill?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If they are linked with the requirements for raising more money, they will be in order, because that is where the money is raised.

Mr. Hobson: This is capital expenditure, and the Bill is for the specific purpose of raising money for capital expenditure. I submit further that the only way in which these remarks could be in order would be if they could be related to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Estimates that less capital equipment is needed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Are revenues and capital separated right through the accounts in the Post Office?

Mr. Gammans: I think it is a fair point to suggest that any economies that might be made in any part of the administration means that less money would be required on capital account.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That was the point I was making, and that was how I thought it worked.

Mr. Nicholson: Clause 1 (1) contains the words "other business of the Post Office," and I should have thought that covered it. I apologise to the House for a lack of continuity, but it is indeed difficult to have continuity when one has about 20 points of order made.
I criticise the Treasury, as the governing Department in matters of finance, for not having any clear idea, or any rudimentary idea, of a policy as to when, or how, this telegraph deficit should be dealt with. I criticise the Treasury for appearing to be disinterested in this serious loss. It is serious if the country thinks that the

Treasury do not occupy themselves with matters of a few minion pounds in an important Department. I think it is serious when the Treasury's view is that a loss on one commercial account does not matter very much because it is met by a profit on another commercial account. It makes one doubt the validity of the theory of Treasury control when this is referred to as merely a matter for the Post Office.
It is still more serious when one finds that the Treasury, while accepting full responsibility for every aspect of the national economic life, do not safeguard the citizens—whether as taxpayers or as users of the postal services—from having to pay higher taxes, through a continuance of this loss, or higher postal charges than would be necessary were the loss reduced or done away with.
For those reasons I am unhappy, disquieted and anxious about the way this telegraph deficit is being treated by the present administration, and as it has been treated by past administrations. It really does matter. It is not a thing to be brushed off in a few hours, once a year, in a House of Commons debate. I very much hope the present administration will deal with it as soon as possible.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I realise that the House has been in some difficulty in discussing this Bill, because it really desired not only to discuss its purpose, but to discuss the activities of the Post Office generally.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) made an appeal for publicity and public accountability, I will repeat what I have said previously. Is it not time that the Post Office adopted what the other nationalised services have done for some years, and let the House, and the public, have an annual report, and a discussion on it? I think that is a sensible suggestion. It is obvious that the public outside desires to see what the public industries do, and that they should give in this House an account of their stewardship.
The Post Office used to present an annual report. They stopped doing so in 1917. This is 1953, and they have now many other good examples showing why they should restore the publication of this


annual report. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General, before he leaves office, will again seriously consider this suggestion, and adopt it. I am sure it will be a service to the whole House.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) is concerned, quite rightly, about the deficit on the telegraph service. He, and others, are in the difficulty that we cannot really discuss that adequately, because we are really limited by the purposes of this Bill and have had a Ruling on it from the Chair. I should not like him to feel or think that it is because there is no desire on this side to discuss these matters.
I was glad that the Assistant Postmaster-General was able to refer to an increase in traffic, on the postal side, of about 33⅓ per cent. My recollection is that the staff have not increased to anything like that extent, so I suppose they are working harder and giving a very much better service.
I was sorry that he was not able to give some idea of the average time an applicant has to wait for a telephone. I realise that there are some difficulties about it, but for my area of Walthamstow I think I could give an average, and I rather think that other hon. Members could do the same. At the same time, let me pay my tribute to the Assistant Postmaster-General for the help he has given to my constituents who want telephones. We always get a quick and useful reply and a desire to help, and that is very much appreciated both by myself and by my constituents. But I should have thought that something could be done to indicate an average; I am not thinking so much in terms of a national average as of locality with locality.
The discussion about the security of mails has rather gone to the point of indicating that the loss takes place after the mail bags have gone outside the control of the Post Office. I am not going to suggest that it is all the railwaymen's fault, or that it is all the Post Office's fault, but I wonder how far the staff have been consulted, and what suggestions the men who work in the railway stations have made for dealing with these difficulties? It is very easy to criticise on the basis that mail bags are to be seen on a railway platform, but where can they be? If

one stands on Paddington Station for a few hours thousands and thousands of mail bags will be seen there, but it would be very wrong to suggest that those mail bags are not under supervision. From my own experience, I think that there could be very useful discussion, not only with the Post Office workers, but with the railway workers, as to how the mails could be taken charge of and handled in safety. Nevertheless, it may be found necessary to face the question of spending more money in certain areas to make sure of security for the mails.
I do not feel that the Post Office surplus should be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the service has produced the surplus, it should go back to the industry itself, to the worker and to the public—the consumer. There was some criticism on the ground that the Post Office must make a surplus, but I do not know that I would accept that as the criterion for an efficient public service. There may be occasions when the service may be efficient but there may be a deficit.
I think the telegraph service is efficient, but there is a deficit. It is not due to negligence; that service is the victim, so to speak, of technical development. If the test that has been applied to telegrams were to be applied to every parcel and every letter, then one could say that all letters are carried for 2½d. each, but it costs far more than 2½d. to take a letter from London to the Western Islands. Some of us have taken the view that with this service which is responsible for communications, one should consider its revenue as a whole; if it is down on one particular branch but up on another, I think we should look at the revenue as a whole.

Mr. Nicholson: If I may interrupt surely if people are using the telegraph service at a price that is well below the cost, and there are other methods of Post Office communication at their disposal at a proper price, it is ordinary wisdom to try to divert them into the channels where they pay a proper price for the service they get, rather than to let them use a service which is subsidised. That applies to most of the 53 per cent. of the business users but, to take the betting telegram as an example, does anyone suggest it is a social service to subsidise that?

Mr. Wallace: I was just coming to that point. I very much doubt whether people waste the telegraph service. It is not cheap. I should have thought that the proper line of development was the shared telephone service which should be made cheaper so that the ordinary householder could have a chance to use it.
I now want to ask a question in relation to the 2½d. letter. What proportion of that 2½d. represents the cost of handling a letter, from collection to delivery? My recollection is that before the war, when we paid l½d., the cost was about 1d. Assuming that the present-day cost is 2d., how many millions of items are being carried by the Post Office at less than 2d., including football pool coupons? It might well be worth examining that matter. Of course, I am not suggesting that the Post Office should be a kind of Father Christmas.
I support this Bill. I do not like the inclusion of this money for defence purposes. However, I have expressed my views on this subject on a previous occasion, and I am not going to repeat myself tonight.
Let it not be assumed that the Bridge-man Committee was a highly popular body. I am not suggesting that there is no need for investigation, inquiry and improvement, but I should like to debate whether, in the long run, the adoption of the recommendations of the Bridge-man Committee, with its regions, its reports and returns, have given the Post Office an organisation really superior to the old organisation. One of the most useful units of the Post Office service was the old surveyor. If that surveyor's powers had been enlarged, as well as those of the head postmaster, I doubt whether we would have needed all this elaborate regionalisation.
I am not at all convinced of the wisdom of the Bridgeman Committee's recommendations, although I am in entire agreement about public accountability. If the Assistant Postmaster-General feels that he would like to embark on such a voyage, I hope that, before he makes such a decision, he will take into account the opinion of the staff side of the Post Office Whitley Council, who have given much service to the development of the Post Office organisation.
My last request tonight to the Assistant Postmaster-General is this. Please publish an annual report and give the House a chance of knowing what the Post Office is doing. The hon. Gentleman has been limited this evening in his description of the activities of the Post Office and its development. He should give the House and the public a chance to know, and he should give the Post Office a chance of making known the good work that it does for the public.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I want first to touch on two points to which the Assistant Postmaster-General referred. One is the question of waiting lists for telephones. As he said, it is true that hon. Members get more correspondence on telephone matters than on almost any other subject connected with the Post Office, and I feel sure that now, as he has told us, that we can expect a faster rate of telephone installations, this will be a great boon to all concerned.
One does not wish to decry what has been done in the last few years, because one recognises that the Post Office has done an excellent job in this respect; but nevertheless, there are many persons in every constituency who are waiting anxiously to get a telephone, whether on the party-line system or otherwise, and I feel sure that anything the Post Office can do to hasten the installation of telephones for these people will be greatly welcomed by them.
Reference has been made to the considerable loss on the telegraph service. I am one of those who feel that the telegraph service is absolutely essential, and therefore I cannot imagine that there can be any serious curtailment in the service which is offered. But when one gets into these arguments of costings, it is difficult to know how one can say exactly what a particular service costs. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace) has said, if a person posts a letter to his neighbouring district he pays the same price as someone who sends a letter up to Scotland. There must be a basic element in those costs where the staff of the Post Office are concerned right the way through, and I should think it would be very difficult to be absolutely certain how to separate the entire cost.
We ought to look on the Post Office as an organisation giving a general service instead of thinking that we can take away one part of the service which is essential to the public, merely because it is a little more expensive than another part of the service.
I want to raise a local point. I was in some difficulty to know whether I would be in order in speaking on this matter, and therefore I have gone to some length to ascertain that I would be reasonably in order. Although this is a local point, it is an important matter to me, to the people I represent and to the great County Borough of Croydon. In addition, it is a very topical matter because discussions are shortly to take place in which there will be reference to it.
I appreciate that the purpose of this Bill is to authorise
raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems 
and it particularly stresses
any other business of the Post Office.
I therefore hoped that one could roam fairly widely in this debate, and indeed I think the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree that he covered a great deal of the general ground. His remarks were very helpful, and I am sure that we were all deeply interested in everything he told us.
I wish to refer particularly to the question of capital expenditure in so far as it might effect alterations in sorting offices in the district which I represent. I represent the County Borough of Croydon, with my two colleagues the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who is often in the news, and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, West (Mr. R. Thompson). This great county borough which we three represent is a very large place. It is thirteenth in importance and size in the country; and it has a population of over a quarter of a million, and some 250 miles of roads, so that it is a very large place indeed. Some 20 years ago a request was put to the Post Office for the revision of the postal districts in the Croydon area. At that time, one of the main reasons it was turned down by the Post Office was the expense involved in altering and enlarging the sorting offices.

Mr. Hobson: In fairness to the Post Office, we ought to say that it was proved that the alterations which the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) is asking for would have resulted in a slowing up of the deliveries.

Mr. Harris: I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that that is not the view of our authorities at the present time. That is why we are continuing to advance the case which will be coming under further discussion. I am only mentioning the fact that one of the main points made at that time—as I am given to understand; I was not a Member 20 years ago—was the expense involved.
Other towns which, although extremely important, in many cases are not so large as Croydon, use the name of their town, followed by numbered postal districts. Such an alteration to the Croydon postal districts would simplify the address problems of many residents and business people there. I do not deny the fact—I am grateful for it—that it will also quite naturally add to the status and reputation of our great county borough.
In the six years during which I have represented my constituency, I have been constantly approached by constituents about this matter, and the borough authorities are energetically pressing once again for the adjustments to be made. Discussions are due to take place in a week or two between representatives of the postal authorities and our own Croydon borough authorities. A meeting is to take place with the Regional Director of the London Postal Region, which will have to be followed, if necessary, by requests for deputations to the Postmaster-General or Assistant Postmaster-General. I hope that these discussions will produce the satisfactory results which all those in Croydon want. I am frankly assuming that the expenditure of enlarging and changing these sorting offices is the type of expenditure which must be included in the request for money which is being asked of the House at this moment.
Croydon has seven postal districts, and the major part of the borough is covered by three—Croydon, South Croydon and Thornton Heath. There are four smaller portions in the northern part of the area, which come under London postal districts—S.E.16, S.E.19, S.E.20, and S.E.25.


Croydon people feel that the Croydon postal districts should be called "Croydon" with numerical suffixes, as in the case of other large towns. The confusion which now arises will be understood by the Assistant Postmaster-General when I tell the House that mail for Norbury, which is a part of Croydon, is sorted in Streatham.
The Assistant Postmaster-General is well aware of the problem to which I am referring. As I said at the beginning, I thought that this Bill afforded an appropriate opportunity for me to raise this question on the Floor of the House. I sincerely hope that the discussions which are now to take place between the Post Office and the Croydon borough authorities will receive the blessing of the Minister, and I hope that they will culminate in Croydon having its own postal districts at an early date, which is what all those in our great county borough are anxious to achieve.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Williams: I am rather glad that the debate has broadened out. I do not take the view that we should limit or restrict it. If I were a member of the postal administration, I should be very pleased if every hon. Member brought the spotlight of criticism on to the reputation of the service, because I think it would be enhanced by the open, free criticism of hon. Members, provided that the criticism was well-informed, fairly accurate and well intentioned. Some of it has been well intentioned but inaccurate, and some fairly accurate but not too well intentioned.
The debate has taken quite a useful turn. I agree with the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) with regard to his assessment and summary of the over-all responsibility of the Post Office and his view that it should not be too departmentalised and sectionalised from the point of view of facilities and service.
With regard to his point about Croydon—whether Croydon is a very big town, whether it is thirteenth or fourteenth in succession and should have its own postal numbers—the Post Office is not primarily intended to enhance municipal reputations. Its main purpose is to try to effect deliveries as rapidly as possible, for the convenience of everybody.

Mr. Harris: I think the hon. Member would also agree that it was not intended that the Post Office should cause unnecessary confusion in the great County Borough of Croydon.

Mr. Williams: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member, because when I was central secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers in Liverpool I had exactly the same argument with the Post Office administration in regard to the fact that Birkenhead, Wallasey and Bootle were disappearing altogether from the scene, and were becoming part of Liverpool. They did not like it, although Liverpool could have swallowed them all and not known anything about it.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) on his great interest in the telegraph service. It is well worth while, now and again to promote people to committees in order to widen the scope of their interests and give them something new to think and talk about. Today the hon. Member has shown his great interest in the telegraph service. At the same time, he has shown a great deal of natural ignorance. I should not expect him to know a tremendous lot about the telegraph service from his casual acquaintance with a few representatives of the postal service who came before his Committee. While I should be very glad to testify to his enthusiasm, I doubt whether it would be wise to rely too much on his judgment, especially with regard to this technical service and all the questions which devolve from it.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Member has referred to my serving on a Select Committee. I shall be grateful if he can tell me whether any of my statements were inaccurate.

Mr. Williams: I have already charged the hon. Member with being inaccurate, and I shall come to that point in a minute, if he can wait for a few moments for me to make an interjectory remark on the subject.
I entered the telegraph service in Caernarvon in 1912. At that time there were two things which were being talked about as being imminent. First, it was said that the Welsh language was going to disappear, and secondly, that the telegraph service would soon be no more.

Mr. Shepherd: They are both on their way out.

Mr. Williams: Here is another man who thinks he knows a tremendous lot about these things and who, by a simple observation like that, shows he is completely ignorant. If he knew anything about the Welsh language, the hon. Member would know that more people today are speaking it than ever. It would do him good to study it.
For all these years the telegraph has been supposed to be going out of existence. I venture to say that the telegraph service will never die because the people of this country, if it came to a question of having a funeral service over it, would not let us. It is too useful a service. I do not know why I should defend the Post Office people. I have been attacking them all my life. I do not see why I should change to defending them, but in fairness to them I must come to the underlying criticism of the hon. Member for Farnham, that the Post Office has since then gradually been going down year after year and that the Post Office people have done nothing at all to try to prevent it, or at least very little, and have said, "It is going down; let it go." That is not true.
There is no Government Department that has spent more energy, thought and consideration on trying to save a service than the Post Office administration has spent in trying to save the telegraph service, and in trying to do it in the only way it could, having regard to scientific developments, namely, by trying all the time to make it more efficient.

Mr. Nicholson: I did not say that.

Mr. Williams: If that is not what the hon. Gentleman said, all I can say is that that is what it struck me that he said.

Mr. Nicholson: I was not attacking them for their technical advances but for not taking steps to reduce the deficit. The hon. Gentleman was so filled with his own deep thoughts that he did not listen to what I was saying. I spoke of the increase in delivery charges, which I think are very great, but the transmission charges have not gone up, which is a very great compliment to the telegraph service.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member has charged me with profound thought, but I am afraid I cannot reciprocate. In the telegraph service in all these years they have switched from one scientific invention to another to do two things, first to expedite the delivery of telegraphs—there is nobody in this House who can challenge that—and secondly, to try to reduce the charges on telegraphs.
I must not speak at too great length on this particular matter, but the problem is quite a simple one in essence. We can have a telegraph service at a loss or at a profit. There is no half-way house. The only way to have it at a profit is to deny to the rural areas the service we give to the urban areas and the big towns. I ask the hon. Member, is that what he wants? Is he prepared to go to the outskirts of Farnham or any other big town and say, "We are going to charge you extra for the delivery of your telegraphs "?

Mr. Nicholson: I can answer the question perfectly well. I have never suggested in this House or anywhere else that the service should be restricted in that manner. I have not suggested preferential treatment for certain areas as against others. What I am suggesting is that business users of the telegraph service should be discouraged by increased charges—others, of course, would have to pay more—to reduce the deficit. I have not said that we can make the telegraph services make a profit. What I said was that the Post Office and the Treasury should take pretty urgent steps to stop this deficit going on, and preferably to reduce it.

Mr. Williams: I am glad I am giving the hon. Member the opportunity to make an entirely new speech and to correct the impression he gave to the House with regard to the telegraph service. I say again—I have said it ever since I have been in this House—that in my opinion the telegraph service is an essential service not only to the business community but to the people in the countryside, and we must not think of trying to do away with it. I am perfectly satisfied that it is impossible to make a profit on the Post Office unless we take the steps I have outlined already. However, I must leave it there, or I shall be too long.
I should like to say a word about the proposed committee on re-organisation. I am always quite prepared to say that there is a great deal of wisdom on our Front Bench. A good deal of the wisdom in this House is placed there, but I am not too sure that I follow them voluntarily in this respect. The Post Office is run pretty well, and in any case I prefer this system, unlike the other systems introduced in connection with other nationalised services, whereby the Assistant Postmaster-General and his noble Friend in another place have to face the criticism of the representatives of the country. I believe that is one of the fundamental bases of democracy, and I would say to the Assistant Postmaster-General that, whatever else he does, he ought not to change the relationship between this House and the Post Office, because if he did it would be to the detriment of the Post Office and a serious loss to this House.
I turn to the amount of money the Assistant Postmaster-General says he is going to spend. The bulk of it is on the telephones, as I should naturally expect. I ask him to spend a bit more at Audenshaw in my constituency. I have been in correspondence with him a long time now about this. He goes on saying, "We are reducing the application lists. We are making very rapid progress in many parts of the country." I want him to apply that same rate in Audenshaw, where for many years our people have been trying to get telephones installed. I should like to have special attention given to that.
I am very glad that the Assistant Postmaster-General is going to allocate a bit more to the buildings. I hope he does not think that by doing so in London he will have disposed of the problem of buildings, because there are hundreds of sorting offices and other buildings throughout the country which are badly in need of repair. They are inefficient, and they are certainly not conducive to the good health of the staff or to their good working. With all due respect to the late Sir Kingsley Wood, who did a good deal for the Post Office—I should not have minded if some of his successors had done as much—he trimmed only the plans that the public could see. He was a great fellow for publicity, and he certainly saw that the windows were clean and that the places and things the public saw, the

counters and so on, were all right, but he left the hovels of the sorting offices, where the bulk of the staff work, untouched and uncared for. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will see that this problem, which has existed for many years, is tackled.
As to security, I agree that it is not always easy to give 100 per cent. security to everything without an inordinate overall cost. The Assistant Postmaster-General says that in the old days we could leave mailbags on the railway platforms and nobody took them. Of course, that is so. I remember the days in North Wales when people used not to lock or bar their doors on going to bed; but they have learned that they have got to do it, and they do it.
The Assistant Postmaster-General has got to learn that members of the public can see millions of these mailbags in positions from which they can be taken without anybody knowing. That has a psychological effect. If there is one thing that the Post Office has been noted for throughout the years I have been connected with it, it is that people can with confidence deposit things in the Post Office and know that they will be safely delivered. I think that the Assistant Postmaster-General and his noble Friend will have to give serious consideration to those external security measures which I mentioned in supplementary questions yesterday.
There is also the question of internal security. I shall not say too much about that, although I could speak on it at some length. A good deal of responsibility is imposed on members of the staff. They have not the buildings, the installations and the cages which make for the security which is demanded in their treatment of packets of high-value and registered letters. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to look into that matter.
Finally, I wish again to refer to the telephone service. I maintain that it is no use saying to industry that it must develop, extend and become more efficient if industry is to be deprived of the telephone, telegraph and Post Office facilities which make that possible. I ask the hon. Gentleman again to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say that money spent on these things will not be wasted. It is not just throwing the


money into a pool for the postal workers' convenience; it is another effort to improve and make more efficient the overall industry and industrial effort of this country.
I am sorry that I have spoken longer than I intended, but I was provoked by the hon. Member for Farnham. I congratulate the Assistant Postmaster-General once again on his great enthusiasm. I hope that he will, when using that enthusiasm, try to bring to it also the balanced judgment of which he is capable.

6.52 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I enjoyed the story of my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General about the birth of the baby, and I am delighted to know that mother and child are doing well. It is also delightful to know that he really is now Her Majesty's Delivery-master General and is responsible for the security not only of the males but of the females. May I inquire whether the child is to be known as David or Ness?
I wonder if I might, before introducing the subject which I should like the House to consider, ask my hon. Friend a few questions about telephones in Northern Ireland. In March of this year, he told me that there were 10,404 applications outstanding and 29 per cent. of the demand was being met in Northern Ireland as against 38 per cent. of the demand in the rest of the United Kingdom, and he was, at that time, considering whether or not a higher proportion of capital resources could be allocated to Northern Ireland.
Subsequently, in August, after inquiry had confirmed that there was considerable leeway to be made up in Northern Ireland, he told me that he proposed to increase the Northern Ireland share of capital resources from 1·9 per cent. to 29 per cent. in order to make up the leeway, but at that time he was not able to tell me how rapidly that leeway would be made up until he knew what the total capital resources would be. Now that he is in a position to know, perhaps he would be good enough to tell us how things are getting on there, and whether the leeway caused by the storm in 1951 has now begun to be eliminated, and when we are likely to be on a par with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want to raise a slightly new subject in this debate. It is one for which the Postmaster-General is to a certain degree responsible, and I am emboldened in thinking that I may be in order because of the fact that Clause 1 of this Bill says that the Postmaster-General may use the moneys we are proposing to give him, not only for the postal, telegraph and telephone systems, but "for any other business of the Post Office." Because of that, and because the Postmaster-General is, by the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, responsible for this matter or has powers in this matter I venture to hope that my remarks may be in order.
The subject is that of frequency allocations, and it is one of first rate importance to the radio industry and, indeed, to employment in this country and to our export trade. I must, in accordance with tradition, declare an interest. I might say, in mitigation of the awful and frightful fact that I have some financial interest in the radio and electronic industry, that my interest in this matter began in this House before I had a financial interest outside it. The subject is one of very great importance. All wireless, all television, radar and such like are dependent upon the sending out of electro-magnetic waves into what we know as the ether. In order that the signals sent out on these waves may be received, it is necessary to have receiving instruments of some sort tuned to receive waves of a certain length or waves alternating at a certain frequency.
Unless there is some sort of arrangement, whereby there is some control over the frequencies upon which the transmissions are made, there is likely to be the utmost chaos, catcalls, screams and everything else at these receivers. Therefore, there must be an arrangement made by which these transmissions do not interfere with each other. There are international agreements and there are internal arrangements inside every country. So far as the international agreements are concerned they are made at international conventions, such as that which took place at Atlantic City in 1947, but very often the decisions of these international conventions are the result of the deliberations of a body known as C.C.I.R., which is an international consultative committee of users.
The manufacturers of electronic equipment are not represented on the C.C.I.R. and can only be represented at the international conventions through the representatives of the Post Office. I should like to ask my hon. Friend whether or not the Post Office consult the manufacturers before their delegates go on to the C.C.I.R. or before they go to the international conferences—

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member knows the answer to that.

Captain Orr: I suspect the answer. I think that in some cases the fullest possible consultation is not necessarily made with the manufacturers, and I believe that it ought to be made.
So far as the internal decision of allocation of frequencies is concerned, the situation is sombre, confused and in an awful muddle. First of all, who allocates the frequencies inside the United Kingdom? So far as the civil users of frequencies are concerned, it would appear that the Postmaster-General has acquired the powers to allocate the frequencies almost by accident, by virtue of the fact that he has the power to licence the transmission of electro-magnetic waves. He is given under the Wireless Telegraphy Act very wide powers of making conditions, and he uses that power in order to control frequencies.
There is no guarantee at all that the power to control frequencies will be fairly used. There is no guarantee that there will be any form of redress for any user of a radio frequency who may feel aggrieved. There is no guarantee that justice will be done between one user and another in the use of radio frequencies, which are an exceedingly valuable form of raw material for the radio and electronics industry, and there is no appeal at all. There is no guarantee that the Post Office, being a commercial concern which is itself running radio links and the like, may not be subject to pressure from the other interested bodies with whom it has to deal. In fact, the whole industry seems to be dependent upon the whim of the Postmaster-General and may be affected by lack of foresight or any other evils in the Post Office.
There is a striking topical example of this about which some hon. Members may have heard from their constituents,

and that relates to the position of mobile radio users. Radio taxis, ambulance authorities, industrial users and others who employ radio to increase the efficiency of their business are at the moment in some doubt and uncertainty because the Television Advisory Committee has recommended that Band III—which, so far as Region 1 is concerned, was allocated internationally for television broadcasting—should be cleared, and, therefore, a number of mobile radio users, including the London taxi-cabs and all the ambulance authorities in the country who use radio, are threatened with having to make a change.

Mr. Hobson: Is it not because of the policy with regard to sponsored television which the hon. and gallant Gentleman supports that these alterations and this expense have been made necessary?

Captain Orr: No, I should not admit that for a moment. Surely the people of this country are entitled to an expansion of the television service, whether it is by a sponsored service or by giving more facilities to the B.B.C. to provide more and more services, but that is not to say that there ought not to be some long-term frequency planning to prevent this sort of muddle occurring.
Here we have these users in a band allocated in 1947 for the use of television—and many of them have been licensed in that Band since 1947—and now they are in the position that they may have to change. Having to change a frequency for an ambulance service may seem somewhat academic, but we have to remember the cost of changing the frequency. Each set has to be altered and this entails more capital expenditure on the part of the user. Changes may have to be made in equipment which may entail capital expenditure amounting to £10, £20 or £30 per set, and for a user with 300 mobile sets that is a considerable expense. Also, there is no guarantee that any other frequency allocated will provide equal facilities or that the user will have security of tenure on any other frequency which is allocated.
This form of radio communication is growing, and behind it is a growing industry, and it cannot thrive in a state of uncertainty such as exists at the moment. Uncertainty is liable to damage a new and growing export trade, and unemployment is likely to occur in the industry


unless some radical change is made. I have given only one example but I could produce countless others, and there are also some which cannot be given for reasons of national security.
I will supplement my argument by means of a few examples from the United States of America in comparison with what obtains here. In the important very high frequency band which runs from 27.5–300 megacycles, in the United States 102 megacycles are set apart for Government use. In the United Kingdom no fewer than 136 are set apart for Government use, 33 more of these valuable megacycles than in the United States, and we do not know what they are used for. I am by no means satisfied, nor is the radio industry, that proper use is being made of them or that the defence authorities are fully aware of the value of frequency space and are making every possible effort to limit their use of it. Has my hon. Friend any say in that matter, or is it decided in some dim conclave below in the Post Office or even outside the Post Office, an inter-departmental committee for instance?
No fewer than 72 megacycles are allocated for television in the United States, whereas in the United Kingdom only 27 are allocated. That partly explains why anyone in New York who wishes to watch television has no fewer than five programmes to which he can tune in, and there are also 27 sound programmes. Why is it that in London we have only one television service and three sound services?

Mr. Hobson: In the first place, because we fought the war.

Captain Orr: That may be a contributory cause, but one of the reasons is the lack of frequency planning. From a frequency point of view, there is no earthly reason why we should not have the same number as New York or even more. Is it due to shortage of frequency space, or is the frequency shortage largely artificial and largely created by the policies of the Post Office? One reason appears to be that the Defence Services get too much space. Another is that the allocation of frequencies is in the hands of two interested monopolies, the G.P.O. and the B.B.C., neither of which is keen upon having facilities made available for its potential competitors.

Mr. Gammans: I do not see in what way any commercial interest could be a competitor of the Post Office in this sphere.

Captain Orr: I am not suggesting that it is possible in this particular sphere, although it might be, but it certainly could be in the marine sphere. My hon. Friend has already referred to the marine rescue service. I can think of many instances in which that might be the case in future.
This matter affects the exports of the radio industry and employment in the industry. As regards the future development of local v.h.f. sound broadcasting, mobile radio, and television, the question of frequency allocation is of the utmost importance, and the situation is extremely unsatisfactory. One way to remedy this would be to remove altogether from the Post Office the power to allocate frequencies. While the Postmaster-General should still have authority to issue licences, the actual allocation of frequencies should be done by means of a completely independent advisory body.

Mr. Hobson: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman seriously suggesting to the House that such secret matters as the allocation of defence frequencies should be put into the hands of people who are not servants of the State or Ministers of Her Majesty? It really is a monstrous suggestion.

Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting me. I am suggesting that in the allocation of frequencies between civil users the Postmaster-General should have an independent advisory body on the lines of the Federal Communication Commission in America. The defence Services would be entitled to say that they needed certain frequencies, but they might have to show that they had exercised all reasonable economy in the use of frequencies. That does not seem to be an unreasonable suggestion. With such an independent body, there ought also to be provided some machinery for appeal to the judiciary in the event of dispute so that justice is not only done between one user of frequencies for mobile radio purposes and another but is also openly seen to be done, which is desirable.
I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, if in his deliberations upon this matter he would like some assistance, then he should submit the question to the Television Advisory Committee and expand its terms of reference. I see no reason at all why that should not be done—why he should not ask the Television Advisory Committee for their opinion upon the methods of allocating frequencies in this country. I commend this to my hon. Friend for very serious consideration, because it is a matter of considerable importance to the future of the radio industry.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: I do not wish to go too far in commenting on the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), but I do not think the question he raised is quite so simple as he seems to imagine. Had he seen some of the correspondence which I have had he would find his arguments apply also to the fire service and other institutions in this country, which are, to my mind, just as much in need of frequencies as the interests which he supports. I am not going into the technicalities of it, but I think the hon. and gallant Member will find that in this matter a little knowledge is probably a very dangerous thing. That is merely his trouble.
The Post Office has come fairly well through this debate. There have been very few complaints about its efficiency and everyone seems reasonably satisfied. The people in the Post Office have every reason to be proud of the past year and proud of being able to show a surplus of £5 million. The Assistant Postmaster-General told us that this was the lowest surplus for quite a long time. I am wondering whether he was being fair to the House when he seemed to suggest that the Treasury did not come into this at all. Is the Treasury going to be satisfied next year with a surplus of £5 million or be prepared even to let the amount sink lower?
Let us face it. In present circumstances the Treasury want a contribution from the Post Office, and if they are not satisfied with £5 million as a surplus or even a smaller sum, then we may be faced with the prospect of losing that 2½d.

stamp of which we are so proud, or facing increased charges for telephones or something like that.
We want clarified the question of this surplus and the Treasury's position in regard to it. If the Assistant Postmaster-General wants any support in any battle with the Treasury on the subject, then he can depend on this side of the House for it, because we are not quite so concerned as the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) about surpluses or deficits and deciding everything on that. We are concerned with the question of service and the people who will be affected by any change in that service.
It is all very well to say that there should be an increase in cost from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. in the telegraph service, thereby reducing the traffic by 20 per cent. and so reducing the deficit. But what about that 30 per cent. of the traffic? Where is it to be accommodated? It may consist of people who are dependent on the telegraph service and for whom no alternative service is suitable. It has to be recognised that for many people the only alternative to the telegraph is the telephone. But those people cannot get the Post Office to install a telephone in their homes. They are mainly in rural areas where installation costs are much greater than in the city of Glasgow, or even in the less important city of London.
Taking that into account, it must be appreciated that we cannot ignore the social consequences of any change of policy. I think it is most unfair for the Chairman of one of the Sub-committees on Estimates, who is not in his place at the moment, to come along and say things about the attitude of civil servants who answer questions. I do not know where he got the impression that they were not greatly concerned about it all. I am perfectly sure that it was the civil servants who supplied the Sub-committee with the alternatives, but it is not for any civil servant to decide about the telegraph service or what is to be the price or whether there should be a drop in the number of people using it.
I think in actual fact it does not matter how much we increase the traffic. The more we increase it or the telegraph service the more the deficit is increased because it is not a question of the cost of transmission. Indeed, I believe that at the


present time the Post Office is in a position to put a better transmission service into operation because of recent developments, but that will not help at all. It is all a question of the cost of delivery. In other words the days when the Post Office could employ a boy of 14 just leaving school for 5s. a week and provide him with a bicycle to deliver the telegrams are gone for ever. Delivery costs are now much greater, and that is one of the modern trends which we have to take into account.
I am not altogether satisfied with some of the changes that have been made. The Post Office has been doing something about the question of delivery. My own constituency is the large burgh of Kilmarnock, and it is surrounded by quite a number of villages in the valley going towards the very border of Lanarkshire. There are to be found the small but important burghs of Hurlford, Galston, Newmilns and Dalry, which is the centre of the lace industry of Scotland.

Mr. Champion: More important than Glasgow?

Mr. Ross: Yes, far more important than Glasgow, which did not produce Alexander Fleming, who invented penicillin. Dairy did.
The position is that the local offices for delivery in these small burghs have been closed, and the delivery point is being centralised in Kilmarnock. So every telegram for the area—and a telegram may be for a place 15 miles away—has got to go through Kilmarnock. When it comes to the winter-time—if the winters are anything like those of the past year or two—there may be considerable delay for roads become impassable. So in this case there has been a definite loss of service, and in the winter there might even be a failure of service to this important rural area.
I am not altogether satisfied that that effort to cut the deficit balances out, considering the sacrifice of service to that part of the community. It is not simply a question of looking at the deficit and then doing everything possible to reduce it irrespective of the consequences. The choice before the Government is one of various evils, and it is unfair—I said this in the absence of the hon. Member for Farnham and, as he is now present, I will say it in his hearing—to suggest that

the failure of the civil servants who came before his committee to give him certain answers showed a lack of interest on their part.

Mr. Nicholson: What I thought I said, and what I meant to say, was that we were surprised that neither the Treasury nor the Post Office seemed to have in their minds the level beyond which the deficit should not be allowed to go, or clear ideas of how it should be dealt with. I did not imply that they had not given exceedingly serious thought to it or were not competent at their job.

Mr. Ross: I took down the words of the hon. Gentleman and I, too, am a member of the Estimates Committee and know the attitude there. We must differentiate between a memorandum coming from a Department and on-the-spot answers. Often a member of the Estimates Committee asks a person if it is his opinion. The answer cannot be anything else but his personal opinion, and to have it put on record that every opinion expressed there is the opinion of the Government is most unfair.

Mr. Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the last thing I want to do is to be unfair to the Department or to its members? I have the greatest respect for the Post Office and its officials, and, if he will read HANSARD, he will see that I have not been unfair.

Mr. Ross: I hope the hon. Gentleman is right, but what it amounts to is not so much a matter of policy but a question of decision. Decisions are bound to be unpopular, and I have every sympathy with the Postmaster-General in this longstanding dilemma of the telegraph service.
I am not altogether happy about the question of development. Under this Bill we are to find a further £125 million. We are told that capital expenditure in the next two years will be £120 million and most of it will be for the telephone service. I am not sure that we have a clear distinction of how much is to be for the civilian telephone service and how much is to be for defence. If I recollect, we were told last year that it was to be over £50 million for defence development.

Mr. Gammans: I have given the figures. They are roughly one-quarter of the total.

Mr. Ross: Then it is a little better than last year. Here is the point. The big hold-up hitherto in the telephone service has been the question of buildings. We were told today that we shall get £500,000 more next year, bringing that up to £6·1 million. As far as I can see, mat half-million pounds will just about cover the increased cost of building, so it is no great advance on last year.
Taking the estimates given by the hon. Gentleman today, in the two years it was £6·1 million and £7·7 million, just over £13·8 million together. The hon. Gentleman prefaced that with the remark that the outstanding arrears in building were over £60 million. We shall be a long time before we catch up on our building arrears. The Post Offices certainly need improvement. It does not matter where one goes into a Post Office, they are always busy, and many of them were built and laid out long before the increased duties that have been laid on them in the past few years came into being.
My hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) referred to what is behind the counter—the sorting office—the place where the main work is done; that, too, is wanting attention. In face of arrears of £60 million, £13 million in two years will not take us far. In addition, there is the question of new buildings, apart from the ones that are unsafe and groaning under the weight of the equipment which constitutes a modern Post Office or telephone exchange. In view of the fact that this bottleneck of building has held up telephone development in many places, we should not be entirely satisfied with the rate of new building that we are getting. It would be interesting to know how much of that £6·1 million which we are to spend next year is divided between Post Office buildings and new telephone exchanges, and how much of it is for purely repair work that has also been held back.
Every hon. Member here has had a letter from the Standard Telephone Shop Stewards Committee of New Southgate, the people who manufacture telephone equipment and telephone exchange equipment. If what they say is true, over 500 telephone workers are in danger of being made redundant owing to lack of orders. I wonder if the Assistant Postmaster-General can tell us whether that is a lack

of orders from him and his Department or a falling off of export orders? Both are equally serious. If it is from the Post Office, how is that affected by past hold-ups in building new telephone exchanges and how much by a slow-down contemplated for the future?
Once again we must batter at the Treasury doors to try to get a little more for the Post Office, more particularly if it affects the livelihood of 500 workers, who are not just individuals, but men working in teams, making specialised equipment, whose services are of considerable importance to the nation on the export side. The hon. Member for Farnham said what I thought were dangerous things about the Treasury. He seemed to imply that the Treasury should have full right to go into the Post Office and decide Post Office policy as it affected deficits and surpluses.

Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Nicholsonindicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: Well, once we get them in, we shall never get them out until they have ruined the Post Office, and the Post Office is something we want to retain. We have considerable problems of Treasury control and, in regard to the surplus, I shall not develop the question of how much we ought to leave with the Post Office. I have spoken on that matter before and also on the question of deliveries in the telegraph service. I want the Assistant Postmaster-General to gang warily on cutting the telegraph service to the rural areas in order to satisfy the demand for economy presented by the hon. Member for Farnborough—

Mr. Nicholson: I did not suggest that.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he never suggested it when he spoke all the time about the deficit and wanted something to be done to reduce it. We cannot say that the 30 per cent. will be only the business community unless we start to discriminate within the service itself, which is not so easy. Therefore it is bound to affect the rural areas, and I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to be wary of such a policy.

7.29 p.m.

Brigadier F. Medlicott: I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will not mind if I do not follow him over the ground


he has covered. I had much sympathy with the plea put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace), a plea which I believe he puts forward regularly, namely, that the annual report of the Postmaster-General should be revived. In the absence of that report, however, these debates give us the opportunity of making a review of much of the work of the Post Office.
I am glad that special reference has been made tonight to the telephone service because, representing as I do a rural area, I know how vitally important the telephone is to people who live far away from the main centres of population. In the countryside the public call box is hardly ever used just for social purposes or for gossip. These boxes are often used for vital purposes, as in the case of accident or illness, or some other human problem. I appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General to make sure that all these boxes are always illuminated. It may well be that they are supposed to be lit up and that when they are not lit it is because the electric lamps have been taken away by people who are lacking in public spirit. Whatever the explanation, these boxes are often in complete darkness. I assure the Assistant Postmaster-General that it is very inconvenient if one has to use an unlighted public call box in a rural area. First one has to find the box and then, by the aid of a flickering match or petrol lighter, find the number one wishes to speak to and then strike another light to find the number one is speaking from.
These public telephone boxes are rural beacons of communication, and I was not at all depressed when I heard that the Post Office lose only £40 a year on each box. I know that we are all quite ready to be generous in expenditure which is of benefit to our own constituents, but having regard to the vital service that these boxes perform, I think that £40 a year is cheap at the price, and I hope that in Norfolk at least we shall see many more of them.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock referred to the communication which most of us received today. It is very helpful for people who write to us to realise that we do try to read all such communications and to make representations in the proper quarter. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to say

something about the question of possible unemployment among those engaged on the manufacture of telephone equipment.
Suggestions have been made that we should discourage Government Departments from using the telephone. We really ought to be more fair to the Civil Service. If it is almost a music-hall joke to complain of delays inseparable from Government service and the administration of public departments, surely we must not take away from them one of the means by which they can expedite the doing of their business. I well remember that during the war Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery used to urge his staff not to think that they were doing business quickly just by writing letters. He said that there was a tendency to think that because one had written a letter one had done something useful, whereas in many cases all that one had done was merely to transfer a problem from one's own desk to someone else's—and that after a delay of 24 hours. The real thing to do was to make personal contact by seeing the other person or by telephoning to him. I think, therefore, that we should encourage Government Departments to use the telephone or whatever else is necessary to enable them to expedite still further the conduct of public business.
I pass now to a question on which the Assistant Postmaster-General somewhat rashly permitted comment when he said that one of the items of expenditure which would come under the present Bill would be the provision of links whereby the B.B.C. could provide further television and broadcasting services to various parts of the country. I hope that amongst those links to be provided in the not-too-distant future will be those which will enable the people of East Anglia to have better radio reception than they are having now and to receive television, which they are now not receiving at all.
I make no apology for introducing this subject, because on the last occasion when I raised the matter at Question time the Assistant Postmaster-General was good enough to tell me that priority had to be given to places like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands over the County of Norfolk for constitutional reasons. I felt that I was being very kind to him in not pressing him to explain and expound further that somewhat unexpected doctrine. Perhaps the answer is that those areas were more persistent than some,


and that they have received the reward of their persistence; but I hope that my appeal will not be lost on the Minister and that he will recognise that we are being persistent too.
One subject which, curiously enough, has not been mentioned at all in this debate is the position and work of scale payment offices—popularly known as sub-post offices. Perhaps it is not fully realised how much of the postal work of the country is done by them. It may not be out of place if I remind the House that nearly 70 per cent. of all the counter work of the post offices in Great Britain is done in the sub-post offices. Altogether there are 24,000 post offices in Great Britain of which no fewer than 22,500 are sub-post offices. These figures underline and emphasise the tremendous importance of the sub-post offices in the general Post Office service.
I must say a word by way of criticism of the general attitude of the Minister and his predecessors towards the sub-postmasters. I hope that he will be able to assure me that the sub-post office will not be regarded merely as something which holds the fort until such time as large and imposing Crown offices can be built. There is a complete case for maintaining the sub-post office—even in many large urban and suburban areas—as a permanent organisation working side by side with the Crown office.
I am not suggesting that there is any antagonism between the established Post Office worker on the one hand and the sub-postmaster and his assistants on the other. The analogy perhaps is with the relation between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army. There are points on which they do not always see eye to eye. Sometimes there are cases where there is only one vacancy to be filled and the Regular soldier feels that he ought to have it. That kind of thing happens in the Post Office in relation to the upgrading of sub-postmasters, but, apart from that, it is true to say that the two types of postal workers work together admirably. I am sure that the various head postmasters under whom the sub-postmasters work would support me in saying that sub-post offices are a very valuable and efficient part of the Post Office structure as a whole.
I speak on this subject with special emphasis because I represent a rural area and I know what sub-post offices mean to the life of the community in such districts. The case for the sub-post office in the country is overwhelming, but the case does not rest entirely upon that argument. Here I reiterate what I have already said to the Minister—that sub-postmasters in general would like to feel that their own future is more secure. The particular relevance of this point to the Bill that is now before us is that from time to time a decision is made to convert a sub-post office into a Crown office and that involves a good deal of expenditure.
I have in mind two cases in the London area alone. In one case the cost of the existing sub-post office was £942 per annum, but it was replaced by a Crown office which costs £3,500 per annum, an increase of over £2,500 per annum. I entirely agree that there are many cases in which this change must be made, but nevertheless it is an expensive change, and I do not think it ought to be made automatically. I know of another case in the London area in which there were two sub-offices operating at a cost of just over £1,000 and £1,200 per annum respectively, and they were replaced by a single Crown office involving an annual expenditure of over £5,000. That was a situation in which two sub-offices were replaced by one Crown office at a net increased cost to the community of over £3,000 a year.
One of the difficulties of this tendency to convert the larger and more remunerative sub-offices into Crown offices is the feeling of insecurity which it gives to the sub-postmasters and the difficulty which it places in the way of recruitment for this valuable service. If I may make a further comment about the general position of sub-post offices, I would point out that they are not all modest little offices being conducted in a part of the village store. At least one I know of has a turnover of half-a-million pounds a year and they often do very substantial as well as very useful business.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman give me the name of the office which has transactions of over half-a-million pounds a year?

Brigadier Medlicott: I will gladly give the name to the hon. Member, but I prefer not to give it publicly, because I do not think that would be fair to the office concerned. To show that the figures are not just a figment of the imagination, I can give further figures of some detail indicating the kind of transactions conducted in that particular office. In one year there were no fewer than 20,000 savings bank transactions conducted, 95,000 postal orders handled, 45,000 family allowances and 88,000 pensions allowances issued, and 12,000 registered packets and 11,000 parcels posted.

Mr. Williams: And that is still a sub-office? I think the Post Office are slipping.

Brigadier Medlicott: I am glad the hon. Member has raised that point, because I wanted to underline the fact that not all sub-post offices are small offices conducted as a part-time occupation. There are many being handled by men who, by their experience, are capable of being promoted to Crown offices and who certainly should be considered for such promotion.
I know that the established staff of the Post Office rightly consider that when a sub-post office is upgraded they ought to receive first consideration for promotion into the new office, and, generally speaking, that is a very reasonable stand for them to take; but I feel that it should not always be a one-way traffic but that on occasions when, by the turn-over and by his long experience and integrity, a sub-postmaster is shown to have the necessary capacity, he should be considered for any new appointment. I stress that it would be a new appointment because in that case he would not be trespassing on the ground of the established staff. He should nevertheless be considered for any such new appointment which becomes available.
I feel that I have said enough on this subject to indicate the importance of the sub-post office in the general scheme of things, and I conclude by urging one point in particular upon the Assistant Postmaster-General—that whenever it becomes appropriate or timely to consider the upgrading of a sub-post office into a Crown office, there should be consultation with those who represent the interests of sub postmasters generally. These men can contribute very usefully

to the consideration of this problem and they may well be able to show that, not only can a sub-office continue to provide the public with the service which it needs, but can do it at a much lower cost than is involved in the creation of a large Crown office.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: I think that we have had a very interesting debate There have been very few major criticisms, and just a few animadversions. The debate has ranged over all the services performed by the Post Office; indeed, I think we can say that we have had a Supply Day debate.
The proceedings have been marred only by the intervention at some length of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I have been in this House for eight years, and in the whole of that time I have never heard such a case of special pleading. If I may say so, it was a perfect example of what has come to be known as American log-rolling. The hon. and gallant Member declared his interest and then proceeded, with complete aplomb, to develop the reasons why those interests should be looked after. Quite frankly, I do not think that is good enough.
As for the hon. and gallant Member's suggestion that civil servants, representatives of the Post Office, the defence services and of private interests should be a tribunal for the allocation of frequencies, that seems to me a most monstrous suggestion. What would happen would be that those private interests, who are responsible to nobody except themselves, would know precisely what are the frequency allocations of the defence forces.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: Why not?

Mr. Hobson: I am surprised that anyone, particularly an hon. and gallant Member coming from Belfast, which claims to be such a patriotic city, and, moreover, an hon. and gallant Member who was educated at Campbell College, should put forward such a suggestion.

Captain Orr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have in my hand an American publication which tells me precisely what frequency bands are allotted to the Government in the United States? If


they can freely make this available in the United States, why should we be so hush-hush?

Mr. Hobson: I always thought, and the hon. and gallant Member has confirmed, that our secrecy arrangements were better than those of the United States. Now I am sure of it. I hope we shall not follow the practice of the United States, for which the hon. and gallant Member has pleaded this afternoon.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: rose—

Mr. Hobson: I am afraid I cannot give way. The hon. Member has only just this minute entered the Chamber as reinforcement for his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South.

Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) has castigated me very severely on account of what he described as my special pleading. He will recall that I emphasised that I was interested not only in the radio industry but in every user of mobile radio in this country—all the London taxis, all the ambulance authorities and the fire services. I do not call that special pleading.

Mr. Hobson: I am sufficiently aware of the procedure adopted in the Post Office to know that these people would not be put to much inconvenience in the initial stage. I want to pass to the Bill.
The Assistant Postmaster-General gave a splendid review of the work of the Department. His speech was most interesting and informative and served the purpose of bringing me up to date with my facts and figures of the Post Office, but I discerned a certain amount of trepidation at the beginning of his speech which I can only put down to the fact that there is a difference between this Bill and that which was presented to us two years ago.
I have before me the Act which was passed in 1952, and there was in it provision for repaying the Post Office Fund. There is no such provision in this Bill, and I should like to know what is the significance of that omission. There is no reference in the 1952 Act to the fact that repayments will be made under the National Loans Act, 1939. That appears to be an addition in this year's Bill, and I should like to know the reason for it.
The third point which I raise in connection with the Bill is this: there was a Section in the 1952 Act dealing with capital expenditure for purposes of Post Office savings banks and stating that it was not to be paid out of savings bank funds. That seemed to me an excellent safeguard. But I wish to know if it means that there is to be no capital investment in the Post Office Savings Bank this year. I should like to know why that is not in the Bill.
In the last Bill, £75 million was asked for. Now the figure is £125 million, an increase of 75 per cent. or, in terms of cash, an increase of £50 million. That is an indication of a considerable increase of capital investment, and I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General what is to be the capital investment this year in the Post Office. That figure has not been given. I think it would be of assistance if it were made known to the House.
I would also ask what rate of interest will be paid on this sum. The repayment is obviously included in the £125 million asked for. The position is that the money is borrowed from the Consolidated Fund which is repaid by the National Debt Commissioners. In the first quarter of 1952 the interest charged was 3⅜ per cent. At the end of 1952 I got an answer, following remarks I made during the debate on the Money Resolution, that the interest would be 4 per cent. We should like to know what interest will be paid this year because, if the general tendencies are an indication, there will be an increase, which means that the Post Office user, particularly the telephone subscriber, is having to find considerably more money.
What about the Post Office Fund? I asked that question two years ago. Is it to be resuscitated or wound up? I always thought that the Post Office Fund was a useful means of providing capital out of the appropriation of profit. It has the merit of avoiding interest payment. I know it was discontinued during the war and there were certain reasons why we were not able to put back capital into the fund. But it would be a bad thing now, eight years after the war, if the Post Office Fund were not to be continued, because it is one means of providing cheap capital and, after all, many of our municipal trading undertakings were financed in that way.
I was pleased to hear that there has been a considerable reduction in the waiting list for telephones, but I should like to know to what extent that has been due to a falling off of demand, if that figure be known, because of the increase of rentals. That may have been a contributory factor. I do not think the Assistant Postmaster-General was playing with figures, but he did give a figure of 100,000 new applicants, and it would be interesting to know the number of people who withdrew their names from the list of would-be subscribers when the rentals and charges were increased.
The £116 million to be provided should go a long way to meet the shortage of line plant equipment and buildings. I would reiterate the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) and express my pleasure at the fact that the Postmaster-General has succeeded in getting the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove the ban on the building of new telephone exchanges. There is no doubt that that militated against a reduction of the waiting list, particularly in industrial areas. When I left the Post Office, one in five of the telephone exchanges were completely full and it was impossible for them to be enlarged.
I welcome the increase in trunk call traffic, although there is obviously a slowing up. The average was 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. during the period when we were in power, and I see the figure is now 4 per cent. That is important, as it means one of two things. It means there were less trunk calls or the capital investment was sufficient to deal with the demand. It is of great importance also, because, as hon. Gentlemen know, the trunk traffic is the most profitable to the Post Office and we cannot have too much of it. I am not one who deplores profit. All I am concerned with is what use is made of the profit. I am not against a socialised service making a profit.
I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he can tell us whether the automatic trunk switching cutting out the interim operator has been completed in the large cities, because it increases efficiency and leads to many economies in staff.
The hon. Gentleman dealt at length with the achievements of the Post Office regarding the supply of telephones, and

it is a fine record. When we left Office one in three of the telephones in this country had been installed from 1945 to 1950, and I am pleased to see that, under the present Government, even that rate has been accelerated. After all, it is in the interest of the Post Office to get as many telephone users as possible and to supply their needs, because that brings in Revenue. I wish to know if the hon. Gentleman can tell us—perhaps not this evening—how much it will cost to wipe out the waiting list. Some years ago the figure of £300 million was mentioned as being the capital investment figure necessary to wipe out the waiting list, and I should like to know what are the present assessments.
Reference was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to the unfortunate redundancy in the telephone industry with reference to Standard Telephones at New Southgate. The hon. Gentleman has almost a constituency interest in this matter, and I was pleased to see how forthright he was in answering the Question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Sir F. Messer) a fortnight ago; but the fact remains that 500 men will be made redundant.
The reason given by the company was because there have been cancellations—that was their first statement—of Post Office contracts. We had a denial of that by the hon. Gentleman, which of course we accept, and the company now have changed their ground. It is now stated that the Post Office have deferred their contracts. We should like to have an assurance, if it is true, that the Post Office have deferred their contracts with Standard Telephones. If they have, that is a contributory cause of the redundancy. On the other hand, if the answer be "No" to that question, I think it unfortunate that a firm of such standing, who owe so much to the Post Office, should seek to "pass the buck." We therefore should be glad of any information the hon. Gentleman may be able to give on that matter.
I wish to deal with the question of the speed of answer. There has been an improvement, largely due to increased efficiency, but also to the fact that the staff position is considerably easier than it was. But there are still certain exchanges which we must look at and


particularly the speed of answer at manual exchanges about which I am not satisfied. Nor am I satisfied with the speed of answer to directory inquiries. That should be speeded up. People dialling directory inquiries often do so in cases of emergency and require a speedy answer, but it sometimes takes an unreasonable time to get a reply.
The length of time for getting phonograms at some exchanges is far longer than it should be, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into the matter. Another rather important matter on which I speak from knowledge is that it is no good the Department making checks on telephone exchanges with regard to the speed of answer if it is known beforehand that they are coming. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look into that matter also.
I had a lot of remarks to make about the telegraph service, but my hon. Friend the Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) knows far more about the matter from his own long personal experience, and therefore I do not propose to say much. I was rather staggered to see that greetings telegrams now account for 15 per cent. of the total traffic. It shows that re-instituting these greetings telegrams in the face of a certain amount of opposition has resulted in an important contribution to the improvement of the position of the telegraph service.
The Assistant Postmaster - General hardly did himself justice on the telegraph service. The deficit this year is considerably less than it was last year. That is largely due to the more efficient methods that have been used. The teleprinter automatic switch has speeded up the service and has made for economy. I should like to know whether there was difficulty in getting the apparatus and whether the programme of installing it has now been speeded up.

Mr. Nicholson: The hon. Member has said that the deficiency on the telegraph service is less this year than last year. What is the source of his figures?

Mr. Hobson: The Commercial Accounts, which say that the loss for 1951 was £4,193,497, and for 1952 £3,337,894.

Mr. Nicholson: The figures relating to the Post Office in the Report of the Committee on Estimates do not show that result. I will gladly pass these figures over to the hon. Gentleman. He will see them on page 5.

Mr. Hobson: I have taken the figures from the accounts which have been produced to the House, and I have them before me.

Mr. Nicholson: Those accounts contain other figures which do not relate to inland telegraphs.

Mr. Hobson: I am making my case on the figures available to me in the Post Office Commercial Accounts. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will resist pressure put on him Departmentally and by the Treasury for amalgamation of the telephone and telegraph accounts. Amalgamation would be entirely wrong. It is essential in a large undertaking, whether nationally or privately owned, that such accounts should be kept separately in order to show precisely what is happening. Otherwise, the limelight is taken away and people do not know the true position.
In regard to increases in the Post Office telegraph rates, I hardly think it is for me to comment on the suggestions which have been made. We have to face the fact that as we have a telegraph service we have to run it efficiently, and secondly that we require the service for strategical reasons. There have been many Departmental inquiries into the service; they were an almost annual occasion. Every Postmaster-General was concerned about the loss incurred on the telegraph service. Bearing in mind the decision of the Postmaster-General that there had to be a national telegraph service, the Department, and particularly the engineers, have done everything possible to reduce the loss.
References to rate increases are hardly a matter for the Select Committee on Estimates. It is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in conjunction with the Postmaster-General. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly has said, it does not follow that by increasing the cost of the telegram we can make the telegraph service pay. It has not done so up to the moment. If, on the other hand, we were to put the service out of


the reach of the poor people who are using telegrams these days, it would not be a desirable step.
We have continually to be looking at this matter. There might be something to be said for having a high-powered Departmental committee to consider the matter with one or two representatives of both sides of the House and representatives of the workers. I have spoken to the General Secretary of the U.P.W. on this matter. He is very much concerned about the loss on the telegraph service. He has been very willing to co-operate in order to reduce that loss. The cost of delivery is the real nigger in the woodpile, and it is due to reasons which are outside the control of the Assistant Postmaster-General.
When I spoke two years ago on a similar Bill I said that we would try to find time to raise the question of regionalisation of the hon. Gentleman's Department. Unfortunately, the sins of Her Majesty's Government have been such major matters that we have not been able to find time through the usual channels for this very interesting and illuminating report to be discussed. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. Wallace) that I was dubious of the regional set up when I was in the Post Office. Hon. Members may say, "What did you do about it?" But the fact is that it had only just got going in 1945, and there was hardly time to look at it.
I have grave doubts now about regionalisation, as to whether it is economical. There is a tremendous amount of overlapping at headquarters and an awful tendency for regions not to take the responsibility which is rightly theirs. Paragraph 14 of the report is thoroughly disingenuous in dealing with the staff position. It said that in the London area there were 1,250 people engaged in clerical duties at headquarters. It gave figures of the people employed in the other regions, but it did not say the number of people who were employed on clerical work in those regions. I should very much like to have those figures and to find them in the report. We shall have to look at that report on regionalisation, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pay attention to it.
Many of the conclusions that were arrived at could have been achieved by

the Organisation and Methods Division of the Treasury. However, it is something for future consideration. In a Department such as the Post Office, I know the difficulty there is for a Minister who wants to get round to matters of this sort. It is superimposed on the administrative structure. Much of the work could have been done by the head postmasters and telephone managers who have already got their own administrative organisations.
Reference has been made to Dollis Hill. We do not know what has happened there. There has to be a research department in the Post Office, but is there duplication between Dollis Hill and the Wireless Research Station of the Ministry of Supply? I hope that the hon. Gentleman, and the Members of the Government, will look at that, because I am convinced that a lot of the wireless and radar research which is being done somewhere in the Midlands by the Minister of Supply could be more effectively done at Dollis Hill, where the engineers and technicians are second to none. And one has always to beware, when dealing with Government Departments, that there is no form of "empire building."
I know this debate has ranged very widely. I do not want to raise the matter of Cable and Wireless, but we do give the hon. Gentleman warning that we shall want time to discuss the last published accounts of Cable and Wireless. It was a matter of great regret to me that the hon. Gentleman announced the increases in cable and wireless charges by a sponsored, "stooge" question, but we shall have further to say on cable and wireless at a later stage.
I am pleased to see that, apparently, the staff problems, which were very real when the integration between Cable and Wireless and the British Post Office took place, have now been ironed out. But what about the cable ships, of which we have four? One of them, the "Alert," is one taken from the Germans, and we want a replacement for it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not flirting with the idea of taking the Post Office cable ships and handing them to Cable and Wireless, because I should not like to see the Blue Duster no longer sailing the seven seas. It is a highly efficient department. One of the vessels, the "Monarch ", has done very well in earning foreign currency. It


is more often than not on charter to other countries rather than working for its own department, and it is the finest and largest ship of its kind in the world. But we have to make provision for the replacement of the "Alert." It is often forgotten that this cable service, of Her Majesty's Government, had the greatest percentage of casualties in the last war—I believe 25 per cent. I should like to know if it is the intention to carry on the marine department, and to take the necessary steps to replace this vessel whose renewal is long overdue.
We do know that, during the year, the staff have done their job well. Their response to the many breakdowns that occurred through tempest has been traditional, and I am convinced that the hon. Gentleman is very well served, not only by the top officials and engineers, but also by the rank and file. As he rightly said, it is a Department that one cannot be in, or associated with, over a period of years without having a sense of pride.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: I trust I may have your leave, Sir, and that of the House, to speak again.
We have had a very interesting debate. It has been very gratifying, to me at any rate, because almost everyone who has spoken, on both sides of the House, has tried to be helpful. There have been, I think, very few criticisms of the record of the Post Office. Most of the speeches have been from hon. Members who understood what they were talking about, and who really tried to put forward positive suggestions.
I should like first to deal with the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) who, I see, is not now here. He started on a high line by suggesting that I should sit down and look round. That is always a pleasant way of living, if we have the time. The right hon. Gentleman wondered whether or not the Post Office should be split into a number of corporations. I do not want to deal with that tonight—we are getting on a very high level—but I should certainly say the Post Office is quite big enough, and I would hope that no subsequent Government will try to load on to it any more

functions. We have enough as it is. He speculated also whether we should have another Bridgeman Committee, but I do not know that the time has yet come for us to take that course.
The right hon. Gentleman also tried to draw me on the very interesting point whether I thought that other nationalised undertakings should be subject to Parliamentary Questions as is the Post Office. I am afraid it is perfectly true that the Post Office can be asked Questions about anything—I can be asked about the number of inkpots in Victoria Street—but I confess that the Post Office is none the worse for being subject to that minute Parliamentary control.
He also asked about the amount which is allocated to defence. I think I have given the figure. It is roughly one-quarter. He asked how it was to be paid for, but he has forgotten what is happening. The Defence Departments rent the services provided by the Post Office, in exactly the same way as a private subscriber rents the telephone, and they pay ordinary standard rates for all they rent from us. We are not, therefore, any worse or any better off—it is simply an ordinary transaction. It certainly does not affect what I might call the civil income of the Post Office, which all of us pay as individuals.
He then raised the question of the B.B.C. links and how much they cost. We expect to spend £650,000 on the television links, and the amount we have spent up to now is £2½ million. For those, the B.B.C., again, pays an economic rent, exactly like an ordinary subscriber.
Both the right hon. Gentlemen, the Member for Caerphilly, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) raised the question of Dollis Hill, and the right hon. Gentleman wondered whether the work done there was related to the present needs of the Post Office, or whether they were peering too much into the far future. I have no reason to suppose that Dollis Hill is not fulfilling the function for which it was set up. After all, with a research department, whether in medicine or in engineering or anything else, it is quite impossible to relate the results of what it is doing to an annual budget. The results of research, certainly in medicine, do not bear fruit for many


years, sometimes not in one's own lifetime, and that principle is true of what is being done at Dollis Hill.
The hon. Member for Keighley raised a matter which I will look at and about which I will let him have information. He wondered to what extent the work done at Dollis Hill could be done equally by the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Hobson: Or vice versa. What I am convinced of is that the work done by the Ministry of Supply could be done at Dollis Hill.

Mr. Gammans: I will look at the point. But I do not want any impression to be given that either my noble Friend or myself have the slightest misgivings about Dollis Hill, or think that it is better or worse than it has ever been. It has a wonderful record, and is highly respected throughout the world.
I now come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) on the telegraph deficit. There has been quite a lot of argument on that on both sides during the debate. I would say I have read that document very carefully, and I know my hon. Friend has given this matter very much thought. I think that perhaps the way in which the officials of the Post Office who were asked to give evidence in front of that Committee was a little unfortunate. They were expected to deal with matters which were not their concern. They are not concerned with policy. That is the responsibility of the Minister; I am the person responsible. I do not like the impression to be gained that the officials of the Post Office or of the Treasury were reluctant to give information. If that impression has been created, I think it simply arises from the fact that questions were asked which should never have been asked.

Mr. Nicholson: I do not wish to create the impression that any question was refused an answer. When the witnesses said that any question raised a matter of policy, we accepted it and let the matter drop. But it is very difficult to distinguish between what is policy and what is not, and I should have thought that how a Department's deficit should be dealt with was not strictly a matter of policy. I do not wish the impression to be created that the Select Committee tried

to force witnesses to deal with questions of policy. When witnesses said that a question of policy was involved, we accepted it.

Mr. Gammans: I accept what my hon. Friend says. I only want to remove any impression that the officials of the Treasury or of the Post Office who gave evidence before the Committee did not give answers which they should have given. The point is that some of the questions which were asked really verged on policy, which can only really be decided by the Minister concerned.
The important thing is what we are going to do. I agree with what almost every hon. Member has said—namely, that the telegraph service must develop in the national interest, and that we cannot allow this matter to drift on year by year. I would assure the House, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham, who has taken great trouble to investigate this matter, that there is not the slightest complacency about it, and I hope that before long I shall be able to make a statement to the House.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Wallace), who takes a great interest in all Post Office matters, raised two points. First, he wanted to know whether I can give him the average time that people have to wait before getting a telephone. Of course, I could give him the average time by adding up all the waiting periods and dividing the answer by the number of applicants, but it would not mean the slightest thing. In one locality where there is enough line and exchange equipment, the average time might be a matter of weeks. In a hopelessly overcrowded area it might be a matter of years, and certainly months. I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is not here at the moment, but I should like to assure him—and I am not trying to be dodgy—that if I gave him a figure it would be a meaningless figure which would not be the slightest help to him or to his constituents.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East also raised the question of security on the railways and the security of mails generally, and he asked whether the staff have been consulted. The answer is, yes. There have been special consultations with the staff and also with the local


Whitley Councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) asked—

Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could he answer the question about the annual report?

Mr. Gammans: The annual report has not been published since 1917. I have not really seen any convincing argument in favour of publishing it. So far as I know, the hon. Member for Walthamstow, East is the only Member who really wants it, and although we have the greatest respect for him personally, if I thought there was a widespread desire for the publication of an annual report I should reconsider the position. It disappeared before any of us here tonight came into this House, and somehow or other we have managed to legislate quite effectively without it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North wanted to know what we were going to do about numbering the postal districts in the county borough of which he is a representative. He gave the answer himself when he told us—and it is perfectly true—that we are now in consultation with the Croydon County Borough Council on this matter. He is quite right to raise the point, but I would ask him to note this. He must be quite sure, and so must we, before doing what he asks, that the result will be a better service. He said that it was a matter of prestige, but prestige does not count if it means that the letters arrive half an hour later in the morning, and I think he will agree that that must be the dominating factor—that it will result in a better service for his constituents.

Mr. F. Harris: I should like to make it perfectly clear that prestige is only one of the points among those which I listed. I do not want to make that the basis of my whole case.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams), who always makes such a happy contribution to Post Office debates, made a very valiant plea for Audenshaw. I can assure his constituents that not only has he made a valiant plea but that I hope we shall be able to do something about it soon. He also raised the building question and said that he hoped building was not going to be restricted to London. I

can give a full assurance on that. The hon. Member also spoke about staff working in hovels. I do not think it is as bad as all that, although there certainly are some post offices which we should like to rebuild.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Surely the hon. Gentleman will not deny me poetic licence.

Mr. Gammans: I forgot the hon. Gentleman was a Welshman. It was just Gaelic eloquence, and we will leave it at that. The programme is not to be restricted to London.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked about telephones in Northern Ireland and he pointed out, quite rightly, that Northern Ireland had fallen behind in this respect. I told him a few months ago that an additional allocation was to be made to Northern Ireland, and I hope that that will begin to show some results before too long.
My hon. and gallant Friend then raised the interesting matter of the allocation of frequencies, about which I have been asked questions in the last few weeks. I think he knows the answer. There is a Departmental committee, representing all those Departments which use the radio, which allocates these frequencies. I must confess that we have had no complaint in this matter. It seems to work very well. As regards industry generally, I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that there is a very pleasant relationship, and there is also thorough-going machinery by which industry can represent to the Postmaster-General any views it may have and make any suggestions which it thinks would help.
My hon. and gallant Friend also asked whether mobile radio users were going to be moved off their present wavebands. They may be. That was the recommendation of the Television Advisory Committee. There is no question of doing it at once, or doing it in a hurry, but if it is technically desirable to clear that particular waveband, it is in the interests of the country to do it. There can be no real grievance on the part of present licence holders, because when they were given licences to use that waveband it was made perfectly clear to them that they might have to move. I can give


the assurance that there will not be any widespread pushing of people out of any particular waveband in the near future.

Captain Orr: Would my hon. Friend agree that it would be desirable to have at least some minimum length of time for the duration of licences in future?

Mr. Gammans: That may be a point, as well as the other point which the hon. and gallant Member made, that this question might be looked at by the Television Advisory Committee. I do not know the answer to that, but I am grateful to him for the suggestion.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) offered, very generously, if there were any question of doing battle with the Treasury, to do battle with me. I had hoped that we were not going to raise once more this question of the depredations of the Treasury. In my capacity as a taxpayer I do not mind if the Treasury gets some money from the Post Office, because if they get it as a result of sound administration and good trading by the Post Office, they will require less money from me as a taxpayer. That does not worry me.
I know what the hon. Member means. He asks whether there is any limit to what the Treasury may want of us. At the moment, that is a wholly academic question, because there is only £5 million this year, and in the following year it is likely to be less. I cannot see that I shall need the hon. Member's gallant assistance to prevent the Treasury from taking too much off us in any foreseeable period of time.

Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the year after this the Treasury will be quite content with a surplus of £3 million?

Mr. Gammans: I have never known the Treasury to be content with anything, but it is not a foreseeable contingency.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock, together with the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson), also raised the question of the Standard Telephone Company. I believe that all hon. Members have had a letter today from the Company's staff pointing out what is happening. I would point out that no contracts with the Standard Telephone Company have been cancelled by the

Post Office. I was asked if they had been deferred. They have not been deferred in the sense that we normally use the word. What has happened is that this company like other firms which supply this special equipment, are told, some years ahead, our general programme of development. We say that in the next few years we are hoping to be able to re-equip so many exchanges with automatic equipment, and so on. But it is only at the beginning of each year that they are actually told what we can afford out of our Estimates.
That is what has happened in this case. This year the Standard Telephone Company had hoped to be able to put in hand certain telephone developments. I do not blame them. They had hoped to do so, but they did not raise the slightest complaint—nor could they—because, at the beginning of the year, we said to them, "This is our allocation for this year, which has not been cut at all." The Company had hoped, quite naturally, that we should be in a position to increase our orders this year.
Their difficulties have arisen not because of anything that we have done, but largely because of the drying up of their foreign markets. I deplore the fact—as every hon. Member deplores it—that very highly-skilled men face the fear of redundancy. I do not think it has taken place yet, and I hope that it will not. The problem is that customers abroad, whom the Standard Telephone Company have supplied in past years, have, for reasons best known to themselves, cut off or drastically reduced their orders. The matter has been made clear to the staff. They have been to see me, and I have explained the whole thing to them. All we can hope is that this redundancy which they fear now will not take place.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott) pleaded very earnestly on behalf of the rural telephone customer. I hope he feels that there has been a great improvement in the last few years in the service to the rural community, and especially that is true of the telephone kiosks. He made, I thought, a rather curious speech about Government Departments. He seemed to think that the strictures given to Government Departments would mean that people in them would not use the telephone at all. There


is not much danger of that. We are not suggesting cutting the Departments off. All we are suggesting is that they should be as economical in the use of the telephone as we individuals have to be because we pay our own telephone bills. I do not think that that means any loss of efficiency or loss of speed.
My hon. and gallant Friend paid tribute to the sub-postmasters, and in that I should like to support him. He asked whether they were about to disappear. I can be quite categorical on that. There is no question of it. The Post Office throughout the country depends, as he himself said, to an enormous degree on the sub-postmasters. He gave the figures himself. Out of 24,000 post offices, 22,000 are managed by sub-postmasters, people who combine some other business with the business of the Post Office. In my experience, they are a fine body of people, and this country certainly could not do without them. If we attempted to put Crown offices where all the sub-post offices are, I do not know whither our accounts would soar. Therefore, I hope that any misgiving on that score has now been removed.
I should like now to come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Keighley. He asked about certain differences in the Bill and the Post Office Fund in particular. The Post Office Fund, as he may remember, ran out some years ago, and is at this moment in suspense, and that is why no reference is made to it here. Will it be revived? That rather fits in with what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had to say. If we get those fantastically large surpluses that perhaps he envisages—I am not sure whether he hopes for them or fears them—we can start talking once more about the Post Office Fund. However, that is the only reason it is left out here.
The hon. Gentleman also said there was no reference in the Bill to the Post Office Savings Bank. There is nothing in that.

Mr. Hobson: In the Bank?

Mr. Gammans: There is no change of procedure. That is dealt with under the words in Clause 1 (1)
… any other business of the Post Office.
He went on to talk about the rate of interest. The rate, on the latest computation in June, was 4 per cent.
He asked whether the demand for telephones had fallen off when the increased rentals came in. There was a falling off. It did not last very long. It lasted about one quarter. Then the demand went up again. As I mentioned earlier, the demand for telephones now is the highest it has been for three years or more. The hon. Gentleman asked what progress there had been with automatic trunks. Good progress has been made. The whole country is not yet covered, but what I would call the steady progress he envisaged when he was in the Post Office has been maintained. He asked how much it would cost to wipe out the waiting lists. I cannot tell him, because a waiting list does not remain a waiting list. All the time there are new applications coming on, and therefore any figure one might give at this stage would be fallacious in trying to assess the situation. I agree with him about the speed of answers on manual exchanges. The obvious answer is to turn them into automatic exchanges as quickly as we can.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of regionalisation. I think he rather wondered whether regionalisation was proving as successful as many people had hoped. It is a very big subject and I should not like to go into it now, but I do not think we have got to any stage of thinking that regionalisation has not worked, or that we can justify at this stage tearing up a system which had not much chance during the war to prove itself and is now to a certain extent not in its infancy but in its early days. The right hon. Member for Caerphilly, when he was Postmaster-General, appointed a working party to go into that, consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the Treasury, the Staff Side of the Whitley Council and people from outside as well. Their report was an extremely favourable one; at all events they recommended no drastic variations.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned cable ships and reminded us of the extraordinary record of the Post Office cable ships in the war and what they are doing today, and what a wonderful dollar earner the Post Office cable ships have turned out to be. I have suddenly realised—I did not know this before and I am sure many other hon. Members have not realised it—that the British are apparently the best cable layers in the world. No one can touch them. It is


nice to know that there is one field in which we are absolutely supreme.
I think I have dealt with all the points which have been raised by Members on both sides of the House in this debate. Once more I should like to thank them for their most helpful criticisms and for what they have said.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Wills.]

Committee Tomorrow.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for raising further money for the development of the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems and of any other business of the Post Office, it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole one hundred and twenty-five million pounds, as may be required for the purposes of such development as aforesaid;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow by means of terminable annuities, or in any other manner in which they are authorised to raise money under the National Loans Act, 1939, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued, or for repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued, and to authorise payment into the Exchequer of any sums so borrowed;
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office, or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund;
(iv) to authorise the repayment into the Exchequer of such sums as are equal to the excess of—

(a) the sums authorised to be issued under paragraph (i) of this Resolution over
(b) the sums borrowed by means of such annuities as are payable under the said Act of the present Session out of moneys provided by Parliament
and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of interest on the sums so authorised to be repaid;
(v) to authorise the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums paid into the Exchequer as mentioned in the last preceding

paragraph and the application of sums so issued in redemption or repayment of debt, or, in so far as they represent interest, in payment of interest otherwise payable out of the permanent annual charge for the National Debt.—[Mr. Gammans]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

PUBLICATIONS AND DEBATES REPORTS

Select Committee appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in arrangements for the reporting and publishing of Debates and in regard to the form and distribution of the Notice Papers issued in connection with the Business of the House; and to inquire into the expenditure on stationery and printing for the House and the public services generally:

Mr. Deedes, Mr. Driberg, Mr. Holman, Lieutenant-Colonel Hyde, Sir Edward Keeling, Mr. Langford-Holt, Mr. Nally, Dr. Barnett Stross, Mr. Storey, Mrs. Eirene White and Mr. Gerald Williams:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Power to report from time to time:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Wills.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS

Select Committee appointed to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as are deposited in the Private Bill Office, such Committee to classify and prepare abstracts of the same in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite information respecting their contents, and to report the same from time to time to the House; Reports of the Committee to set forth, in respect of each Petition, the number of signatures which are accompanied by addresses, and which are written on sheets headed in every case by the prayer of the Petition, or on the back of such sheets provided that on every sheet after the first the prayer may be reproduced in print or by other mechanical process; such Committee to have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport, Mr. Hargreaves, Mr. Hector Hughes,


Dr. King, Mr. Lambert, Colonel Lancaster, Major Legge-Bourke, Commander Maitland, Mr. McGhee, Mr. John Morrison, Mr. Pargiter, Mr. J. T. Price, Sir Victor Raikes, Colonel Thornton-Kemsley and Mr. Watkins:

Power to send for persons, papers and records:

Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Wills.]

ESTIMATES

Select Committee appointed to examine such of the Estimates presented to this House as may seem fit to the Committee, and to suggest the form in which the Estimates shall be presented for examination, and to report what, if any, economies consistent with the policy implied in those Estimates may be effected therein:

Committee to consist of thirty-six Members:

Mr. Albu, Mr. Blackburn, Sir Alfred Bossom, Mr. Dryden Brook, Miss Burton, Mr. Norman Cole, Viscountess Davidson, Sir Patrick Donner, Sir Fergus Graham, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Holt. Mr. Horobin, Mr. H. Hynd, M. A. J. Irvine, Mr. T. W. Jones, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Malcolm MacPherson, Sir Frank Markham, Mr. Mulley, Mr. Godfrey Nicholson, Mr. Nigel Nicolson, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Sir Ian Orr-Ewing, Mr. Peyton, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. J. T. Price, Mr. William Ross, Mr. William Shepherd, Mr. G. P. Stevens, Mr. Storey, Mr. Summers, Mr. Tomney, Miss Ward, Captain Waterhouse, Mr. Ian Winterbottom and Mr. Yates:

Seven to be the Quorum:

Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committee C of the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Session of Parliament on 23rd March and subsequent dates referred to the Committee:

Power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report from time to time:

Power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Three to be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee:

Every such Sub-Committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; and to adjourn from place to place:

Power to report from time to time Minutes of Evidence taken before Sub-Committees.—[Mr. Wills.]

MENTAL HOSPITALS (STAFFING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wills.]

8.47 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I am glad that the Adjournment debate has come on so early, because the subject I wish to raise is one of national importance. I hope that as a consequence of the time factor it will be possible for a number of hon. Members, who I know have a contribution to make on this very important problem, to take part.
The subject of the debate is the shortage of nursing staff in the mental hospitals, with particular reference to the mental deficiency hospitals, which, for a better term, I had better call mental colonies. I have the honour to be a member of the South-East Regional Hospital Board and chairman of the local hospital management committee, and for some time past, since 1948, I have taken an interest in the hospital affairs of our country.
At the last meeting of the South-East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board, the problem of the staffing position of the mental colonies in that region was raised by the chairman of the mental health committee. The chairman of this committee is a very able man, a doctor, and well respected by the members of the board. He is a man not given to making alarming statements. He said to the board—and the Press were present—that the position in that region with regard to the staffing of mental colonies was so serious that unless some improvement took place in the very near future there would be a complete breakdown. He went on to say—and the Parliamentary Secretary will know the answer to this—that in his honest belief, from what he had been told, the position in other regions was not only as bad but in some


cases even worse. I understand that in one region the story is four times worse than the one I am about to tell. Therefore the shortage of nursing staff in mental colonies is a subject of national importance.
I want first to emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that the subject is non-political and that any criticism which I may make is not directed at her Department or at either herself or the Minister. The situation which has arisen is one which we must face and solve jointly. It is as serious as that. If I do make criticism, I do not want to be involved in any political arguments, for the subject is too big and too important for that.
The plight of the mental defective who needs institutional care is very serious. Yet little is known about it generally, and so I think it right to survey some of the problems facing those who are dealing with the problem. I am a layman in these matters, but I am advised that in the mental defective world the patients are in two categories, low grade cases and high grade cases. The low grade case is that of the idiot, the type of child, in particular, or man or woman, for whom very little can be done but who has to go to an institution or colony to be cared for. The people who are doing this work deserve our highest praise. They are doing a magnificent job under difficult conditions. We have very great sympathy with the low grade case, but it appears to be one for which little can be done except to provide institutional care.
The high grade cases are persons who are feeble minded and suffer from imbecility, and very great improvement can be, and is being, achieved by means of institutional care in the mental hospitals catering for this category. These institutions have a remarkable record of success in making these people stable once again and in sending them back into society as useful citizens. A great work is being done.
It is important to remember that the doctors and nursing staff are extremely anxious to get their share of the high grade cases in order to get some glory out of their work by being able to see success resulting from their efforts. However, the two hospitals in the South-Eastern Region—I understand that the situation is similar in the country as a whole—are able at this stage only to take

the low grade cases, which, in the main, are unlikely ever to be trained up to a socially or economically valuable standard. By virtue of this, these cases have to be given admission priority over cases which might in the long run become stable, useful and happy citizens. No one denies that those cases should be the first to be admitted into the institutions.
In the two colonies with which I am particularly concerned, Darenth Park and Leybourne Grange, there are 500 vacant beds because of lack of staff. The staffing position is appalling. Last year we lost the following nursing staff: at Leybourne Grange five male and 45 female, and at Darenth Park 50 male and 61 female. At Leybourne Grange we were able last year to recruit only three males and six females. At Darenth Park we recruited 14 males and six part-time females. We were also fortunate enough to get some French women, but they stayed only a short while.
No one would deny that if these 500 beds were full tonight there would be financial difficulty in maintaining them. However, I am not arguing about whether the money is available for that purpose. It is an actual problem that these beds are empty because there is no staff available. The result is that the low grade type of case is the only one being catered for in these two hospitals, and even for that type of case the waiting list is very large.
The more I hear of this matter the more upset I get about it. It is the most distressing subject that we find. I know that the Minister will be with me in this matter, because like the rest of us, as a Member of Parliament, she must get letters about these cases. I have received sufficient to make me go into the matter more thoroughly, and I have paid visits to the medical superintendents of these homes. I have asked how I could help, and I have been told that the best thing would be to read a sample of the letters to give an idea of the sort of problem we are up against.
I propose to read some of these letters as I want to shock the public conscience on this issue. It is about time the public knew that the position is as bad as it is. I have here letters from the parents of patients and also some from medical officers and others.
One concerns a child of nine years who for seven years has been on the waiting list for admission. The father writes to the doctor:
During the nine years of his life, my wife has not had one single day's holiday, and each day now is certainly shortening her life.
For seven years they have been waiting to get that child into hospital, and they have not got him in yet.
Another letter concerns a woman who has to be looked after at home. She cannot be taken into hospital because we have not got the staff. This woman cannot cook and is unable to do anything for herself. She is not allowed out, and the person who looks after her has to go to work during the day. That person writes a most tragic letter, which I do not propose to read to the House because it is too shocking.
One of these letters concerns a child of six years who has been on the list since birth, and the parents are crying out for this child to be taken in if only for a short time to give them a rest. The viciousness of this problem is to be seen where a mental defective may be in a home with other children who are sane and happy. The child who is defective may cause some heart-breaking incidents.
There is a letter here from a minister of religion—I shall not read any names—and he has intervened because he knows the home circumstances. He says that the great problem in the case he quotes is the effect of this mongol child in the home upon the brothers and sisters who are a little older. He says that there is a nervous tension in the home which has to be seen to be believed. This really is a tragic problem, and when we remember the urgency of some of these cases and then reflect on the fact that there are empty beds but no prospect of getting staff at the moment so that those beds can be used, we can visualise something of the terribleness of the problem. That is why this matter has been raised on the Adjournment in the way that it has.
I should like to give the House one other figure. I shall not weary hon. Members with too many, but I think this one is important. In the last half year the numbers waiting for admission to these two colonies was 472, and they are considered vitally urgent cases. By improvisation and such other means we were

able to admit only 158. Now we have the problem that if a mental defective for some reason or another appears in the police court and is certified for a mental home we cannot in some cases take even that case. Indeed, the hospitals have got to the stage that if they take that case it means that it has jumped the list. One regional board has appealed to us to see if we can stop magistrates making a court order for admission to the institution.
Now I want to deal with the high-grade cases. I have seen records of cases which, because of the better psychiatric treatment and diagnosis, have made a complete recovery but, owing to the fact that the hospitals are being caught—if I may use that term—with low-grade cases, the nursing staff become frustrated and the atmosphere of the colony is deplorable. So, although in one sense the shortage of mental deficiency nurses is part of a much wider picture, which is the shortage of all nurses, this is a special problem which must be dealt with in a special way.
What are some of the solutions? I do not suggest that what I am about to say will be the complete answer to the problem, but my suggestions are made in all sincerity and come from other sources than my own. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to consider them sympathetically and, when she replies, either to accept them, or to give me the reasons why that is not possible. I know she will not utter any platitudes and will agree that this problem is as bad as I have described it. I hope, however, she will not say that there are certain committees considering this question.
Now I want to read a statement from two devoted nurses who have spent their lives in a mental defective colony. It is worth reading because they are women with great experience on this work. They say:
In point of fact one of the chief reasons for wastage is the hours of duty and the fact that a student nurse comes to realise the fact that, whilst it is possible to qualify as a staff nurse in three years, it will be a further seven years before the maximum salary for this grade is reached. Added to week-end, evening and night duty, this is too much, and in spite of the reasons for resignation given on the forms, these are more usually the real causes for the nurse leaving.
Male students, the young married men who are stable and responsible folk, cannot afford to take up training. Their future is uncertain. They have various Service commitments and,


after their National Service period, they require the wherewithal to set up house. The basic fault is that both salaries and conditions have failed to conform to the pattern of improvement to be found in other occupations and, more especially, to the rapid rise in the cost of living since the war.
Those responsible for the recruitment of nurses must realise that they are now competing with industry and trade interests in the labour market, and that the nursing profession must offer opportunities of remuneration which are equal, if not better, than those in other fields of employment. And furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the greater number of male nurses in recent years means that the wages must be such that they can support and educate a family.
We often hear the statement, particularly from matrons of general hospitals, "Nursing is a vocation and material rewards are not really required." That is old fashioned. That is out of date. Of course, nursing is a vocation but we have already proved, in the Spens scale and the Danckwerts award to the doctors, that worthwhile vocations ought to be well paid. Tonight we should recognise that, although nursing is a vocation, it must be made attractive and paid for adequately.
To sum up this part of my speech, I believe that recent work on training defectives has shown what can be done by patience and skill to make the defectives socially useful, stable and happy people. After this treatment many of them do not need permanent institutional care.
The facilities now available are not being used to the best advantage because of shortage of staff. This is due partly to the overall shortage and partly to the need to use the present staff to nurse low-grade cases. There are indications that this problem is becoming worse and we are told by the experts that if things continue in this way there will be a complete breakdown in the future.
Many of these cases present most tragic problems for their families. Some of them have already been waiting for years. These waiting lists are growing steadily and rapidly and the chance of getting into an institution is becoming more remote than ever. This is not a problem for local committees. It is a national problem for the Minister. I am sure that it is not necessary for me to say any more to prove that the problem

exists and that it is a problem that calls for Ministerial action in this House. I, therefore, reiterate some of my suggestions as to how the problem should be tackled.
There is need to improve wages and conditions. We talk glibly about these things. Arrangements were made quite rightly to give T.B. nurses a special bonus of £30. The Minister must equally make certain that the wages and working conditions of mental deficiency nurses are improved considerably. The Parliamentary Secretary must tackle the problem at Ministerial level and not wait for the Whitley Council machinery to operate. She must make a definite statement that she believes the time has now come for her to give these people special rates of pay and special conditions. She must do this in order to attract staff and to awaken the public conscience. We need a national Press campaign to attract more people as part-time or full-time volunteers.
We must not leave this need to be advertised, as it is at the moment, in announcements tucked away in the pages of a medical journal which is read by the few. This is a national problem. We had the same problem in Civil Defence and thousands of pounds were spent on publicity. Let us spend money similarly on this problem. The Minister must insist to the Ministry of Labour that there must be no further call-up of student male nurses. Such a call-up cannot be justified. We rightly give exemption to miners and those engaged in the Merchant Navy. Those engaged in training to be male nurses should not be called up at any time. If they are prepared to do that job they are serving this country well enough—better than many people can hope to do in thousands of other jobs.
The Minister must provide special staff accommodation and facilities for recreation, particularly in mental colonies which are situated in remote areas. All this, of course, will involve the spending of more money, and in fairness to the Ministry it should be said that they have already decided that more money shall be spent in this way. There also should be a drive to recruit part-time nurses, both male and female.
As a result of my personal association with the hospital world, and my experience as chairman of a hospital management committee, I know that general hospitals are doing great work and that their staff problems are very difficult, but they are nothing like as difficult as those connected with mental nursing. I know now that the problems connected with the nursing of the mentally deficient are of such a character that they can only be dealt with on a national basis. I beg the hon. Lady to approach the problem in that spirit. I ask her please not to tell us, "A Committee is thinking about the problem."
On behalf of the Board I represent, I tell her that if we go on at the present rate we shall come to the Minister and say, "We are closing down; we cannot carry on." Then something will have to be done. It is bad enough at the moment, with the waiting lists at their present size and people remaining on them for years, but if something is not done the position will be even worse. I beg the hon. Lady to say that something will be done now, and I beg her tonight to give a complete answer.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I am sure the House, and certainly those who have tried to deal with this problem in the country, will be indebted to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for raising this issue tonight and also for his good fortune in having been able to raise it on an evening when we have more time than is normal for an Adjournment debate.
No one who has attempted to learn something of this problem and who has been brought face to face with it will think that the hon. Member has overstated his case. Indeed, my impression is that he has not painted the problem in sufficiently harrowing terms, because unless one has had the experience it is impossible to appreciate what tragedy lies behind the figure of 4,000 children awaiting entrance to an institution. Perhaps it does not seem a great number, but every case involves incredible hardship and distress.
Unless they have had the experience, people cannot imagine what it is to have a child suffering from fits of screams for

two or three hours at a time, going on not for days and weeks but for years. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, the cases occur mostly where people have a number of children and, too often, where there is another child on the way, adding to the burden of distress to the household.
During the time I have been concerned with this problem, which is almost from the time I came to this House, I believe nobody in any Ministry has devoted enough attention to it. There has not been sufficient public attention drawn to the problem or sufficient determination to overcome it. There are methods by which we can try to tackle the problem. There are means by which people can help themselves, and the National Association for the Parents of Backward Children are doing something along those lines. They are helping the parents who are in this predicament to help themselves. I certainly hope that the Minister will encourage the opening of occupational centres, because although they are not an entire solution they are certainly a means of alleviating the distressing conditions which exist in many parts of the country.
Moreover, although I do not know the present position in connection with short-term homes, I would emphasise that in the present situation these short-term homes are a vital necessity. I do not know how far the Ministry is providing capital for the opening of such homes, although I understand that it is difficult to provide capital for the purpose, but the short-term home is a means by which we can relieve the most acute distress. When the strain on a wife or husband becomes so acute in a house which contains one of these unfortunate defective children, sending the child away for a few weeks while the parents recover from the strain is a great benefit. For some years I have been pressing for more attention to be devoted to getting more short-term homes going, because although that is not in itself a solution of the long-term problem, it helps with the worst cases which exist today.
As the hon. Member for Bermondsey suggested, I think we should have a campaign for the recruitment of nurses. Obviously, the shortage of nurses in this field is shocking. Not only is it bad in the sense that there are many beds which are


not being used, but if hon. Members look at the figure of nurses to patients in the beds which are being used, they will realise that those figures are pretty poor. I am quoting the most up-to-date figures—these are for last year—but the position roughly works out at one trained nurse for every 17 or 18 patients. In view of the special difficulties of dealing with mental patients, that is an extraordinarily poor proportion.

Mr. Mellish: I am grateful to the hon. Member for all he is saying. It is a fact, as he probably knows, that in some cases the stage has been reached at which they have to ask one patient to help another, where that is possible.

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, I think that is so. Of course there are many grades of defectives and sometimes they can be put to useful work.
But the ratio of one trained nurse to 17 or 18 patients is far too low for the efficient handling of these defectives. The ratio of all nurses is better; it is one to every six or seven patients, but it is not adequate to meet the need, and there is in most cases a deficiency. I am certain that if we awakened the public conscience to this problem, we could get the support that is necessary. Now that things are easier in other respects I hope the Minister will try to get adequate accommodation, particularly for these children, and a sufficient staff to man the homes. I know that it is not easy, but there are people willing to help. I am sure that the National Association for Mental Health, if it could get the capital, would run more short-term homes. I cannot sufficiently stress the importance of these homes as a method of relief.
We have never raised the status of mental nurses. I do not know the present position, but I understand that at one time there was not a supplementary register of mental nurses. I hope there is one now. If not, there should be. I do not see why ordinary nurses should not spend a certain period of their service in mental nursing during their qualifying period. That would help to meet the immediate problem of lack of staff.
I hope that the Minister will encourage the use of approved homes. In the past—I do not know what is the present position—there has been some difficulty in filling the vacancies in approved homes, because

unfortunately all the regional hospital boards have their allotment of funds for work in their own area and have not been able to send patients to another area where there may be accommodation in an approved home. I do not know whether that administrative problem has been overcome. Indeed, the whole question has been bedevilled by this duality of administration between local authorities and regional hospital boards, and it would be useful if we could have a complete examination of the matter and devise a better and a more clean-cut set-up than we have now.
I hope that all hon. Gentlemen wilt join in pressing this point. It should not be beyond the capacity of this country to deal with 4,000 urgent cases and so to relieve 4,000 homes of intense misery and distress. Some of these children have most unfortunate tendencies which make them dangerous in more ways than one It should not be beyond the scope of a country which has spent so much money in other directions, and achieved so much in other fields, to put these 4,000 children in approved homes and give their parents some relief.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. J. Slater: I am glad that my hon. Friend was fortunate enough to be able to raise this matter tonight. Every hon. Member who has knowledge of hospital management committee work is aware of the great problem confronting such committees in these days.
It is true that there is a lack of nurses in mental hospitals and mental defective colonies. At Winterton in my constituency there is a mental hospital which should accommodate 1,500 patients. At the moment it accommodates 2,000. I have addressed Questions to the Minister of Health on this problem and stressed the need for extra accommodation. I served on the management committee of that hospital for six years. We had patients lying on the floor and others in beds which were so close to each other that there was not sufficient space for the staff who had to nurse the patients. That was the problem which confronted us when I was a member of that hospital management committee.
We are still carrying more than the maximum number of patients that ought to be carried, and we face the same


problems as have been mentioned tonight with regard to mental nurses. We have female nurses taking up duty to assist the mental nurses during the night. They are unable to do it during the day. In the Ayclife Mental Colony this problem is particularly acute, and I am glad that the Minister has gone some way to meet the position. I receive a number of letters from people in my constituency who are trying to find accommodation for mentally defective children.
If the Labour Government had done nothing else but introduce the National Health Service Act, it would have done a good job, but that Act has been primarily responsible for the overcrowding of our mental hospitals. At one time, when we were asked to certify a member of a family, the financial position of the person who would have to bear part of the financial responsibility was important. If that person was not in a position to make a contribution towards the maintenance of the patient, he was obliged to look after the patient himself. With the introduction of the National Health Service that great burden of responsibility was removed, and that has been the primary cause of the increasing numbers in our mental hospitals.
I agree with what was said about the recruitment of nurses into mental hospitals and defective colonies, but the commencing wage that is offered to young people coming into the service is far too low. At one time we had a list of applicants for mental nursing, and a waiting list from which we used to call applicants as vacancies occurred. Now we have no waiting list, and we have to advertise repeatedly to get people to interest themselves in this profession.
Mental nurses in all these institutions are doing a good job, yet the number of patients allocated to an individual nurse needs to be reduced. In the course of my visitations I used to go every month into the wards, and what I saw used to make my heart ache. I used to see two female nurses having charge of 40 patients. That was far too many. I hope that the Minister will say tonight that her right hon. Friend will not only consider the great problems confronting management committees, but will provide more money for recruitment grants to get

young people into this profession, and for giving more accommodation to patients in these institutions.
I should like the hon. Lady at some time when she is at liberty to visit my constituency and look at Winterton. Prior to the National Health Service it was the policy of the Durham County Council, in co-operation with the Darlington Corporation, to seek to change that massive building, to remove the picture it presents of a great prison, to take out those small, narrow windows and so on. Anyone seeing it for the first time definitely looks upon it as a prison. I think it is time that alterations were made in these buildings to improve their appearance so that the people visiting the patients may have a better impression.
I think that in this debate a case has been made in regard to the shortage of nurses and the lack of accommodation which should receive reasonable consideration.

9.26 p.m.

Sir William Darling: It is a very gratifying experience to find so many Members of the House prepared to address their minds to this very poignant, human problem. None of us is free from the experience of mental disease, either in our own families or in our constituencies, and it is one of the gravest and mounting problems of our complicated social life. The suggestions made, which I am sure my hon. Friend will take into account, are valuable ones. My only suggestion to her is that, in the shortage of labour, which is admitted on all hands, perhaps because of the un-palatibility or apparent unsuitability of mental nursing, there is a field which has not perhaps been fully explored, although it has been, to some extent, in some parts of Scotland.
I refer especially to the use of the middle-aged women, and indeed middle-aged men, for this difficult and delicate purpose. In Scotland, as in England, generations ago in every village there was a daft lad. They were not put into institutions, but wandered about the country in the company of more intelligent people, and possibly learned something from them. They did not find an evil example which they were tempted to follow.
There was something to be said for a considerable amount of freedom in the


villages and country towns. I have a clear recollection of the village in which I lived as a boy, where an old woman took control of two daft lads who were not only a problem to the neighbourhood, but were vicious in their habits. She had a peremptory authority over them that was greater than that of the policeman or even of the local authority.
I suggest to the hon. Lady that in these days there are many who are getting on in years, women as well as men, who, in suitable circumstances, could not only devote themselves to but actually have the responsibility of looking after those mentally defective children. I know of a woman in her sixties who has made it her business to look after three children, two permanently, living with her in her house. She has a calling for this particular work, and having seen her carrying out this duty for no money, or for little money, I am convinced that possibly, in the event of being unable to find suitable younger people in sufficient numbers for the profession, it might be a task to which older people might devote themselves.
I know of a man in a constituency near to mine, a taxi driver, who is out at work for 10 or 12 hours a day. He has a boy aged three, a destructive child, to whom he and his wife are devoted, but his wife told me that but for the kindness of a neighbour who once or twice a week takes this unhappy child away, she has no rest, no sleep, no peace, and is unable to attend to her own life or to that of her home. This unhappy creature has got destructive habits and has to be put into a room which is stripped of all furniture. This friend of theirs looks after this boy from time to time, but the mother is worried about what will happen to the little boy when she is no longer able to look after him.
I understand that under the Ministry of Health Regulations, the Department of Health in Scotland will not undertake, even if it could, responsibility for such a case until the child is five or six years of age. The parent must accept the responsibility in such cases until the child is of a sufficient age to be accepted by the Department. That is a hard and cruel rule. The approved homes, of which we have some knowledge, can be multiplied, but I do feel that people of my age could usefully be employed looking after persons with wayward minds. I do not

think it would be too much of a responsibility to look after this type of child; it would make circumstances easier for the parents and it might bring about some cure for the children themselves.
One must not be despondent in these matters. I have known of two persons who were mentally defective and who eventually developed a kind of twisted sanity so that they were able, in some odd way, to fulfil certain functions connected with business and commerce. These broken people have a potentiality for good. I think that the heart of the Parliamentary Secretary is as touched as ours are, and her hands are as willing as ours are to find a remedy; and I believe that she will be strengthened and encouraged in her purpose if she knows that in what she does she has the support of the whole House.

9.33 p.m.

Miss Alice Bacon: I agree with everything that has been said about the state of affairs inside mental defective colonies and the need for proper institutional care for mental defectives. The position is serious and urgent, but I want to confine my remarks to the shortage of beds inside mental hospitals.
The situation in mental hospitals today is in some ways a disgrace to our country. Some months ago, as a result of letters and representations made to me by constituents, I took an interest in one of the biggest of our mental hospitals, Menston, which is just outside Leeds and caters for a large area of the West Riding, including the City of Leeds. I thought at the time that Menston was unique. I have discovered since that the Menston hospital is typical of other mental hospitals throughout the whole country, as indeed is shown in that illustrated article in "Illustrated" two or three weeks ago. I remember putting down Questions at the time, as a result of which there have been very minor alterations, but the management committee and the staff are really powerless in this matter unless really urgent steps are taken.
I have found that inside the hospital the mental treatment is good. The hospital is clean and the food is good. It is a miracle how the staff manage to cope with the number of patients and the conditions which obtain there. Quite frankly, what is wrong—as it is in nearly all our


mental hospitals—is that there is considerable overcrowding and under-staffing. This hospital is supposed to have room for 1,900 patients. At the time when I went there, and today, the number of patients inside the hospital is nearly 2,500, which means that the hospital is accommodating over 600 patients more than it was intended to do.
The wards have to be seen to be believed. I saw a ward, about the size of a normal hospital ward, which contained 112 beds for female patients. There was not sufficient room for the patients to undress inside the ward. They had to undress in another room which, in the daytime, was used as a recreation room. I was curious to know how the 112 female patients managed to find their own clothes in the morning, when they were left on the floor of the recreation room at night. I was told that the female patients had their names stitched inside their corsets. Their clothes were then rolled up inside their corsets and put on the floor at night, in 112 bundles, and the patients had to be filed into the wards where they slept and filed out again in the morning to dress.
This is the 20th century, and these are the conditions inside our mental hospitals today. But it is not just a matter of beds and buildings. As has already been stressed tonight, it is also a matter of adequate staff, because even if we had new buildings there is a shortage of staff to man them.
There is another problem which has not been mentioned tonight. Inside this particular hospital—and again I believe it is typical of many of our mental hospitals—there are 500 patients who are over the age of 65. I feel that today a great many old people inside our mental hospitals ought not to be there at all. We all know this problem. If an old person shows signs of senility he or she is not taken into the ordinary hospital ward or admitted into one of our excellent new hostels. There is a gap in our accommodation for old people, and so they are being put into mental hospitals, where they take up beds, when all they need is institutional and nursing care. They do not need any mental treatment.
These people are taking up beds and accommodation which could be used by patients who need mental treatment very

urgently. In the future we shall have to look for some additional establishments for our old people. Call them half-way houses, or what you will, something between the hospital and the hostel is required, and if that accommodation could be provided it would relieve to a great extent the overcrowding in our mental hospitals.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Member would also like to express the fact that putting these old folk into mental hospitals does cause their mental powers to deteriorate very rapidly. There is a deterioration of mental stature which is quite remarkable over a short period of time.

Miss Bacon: I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention, and I agree with him entirely.
There are three problems with which we are concerned here. First, there is the problem of buildings. At this stage—eight years after the war—that should not be a very great problem. Secondly, there is the very difficult problem of the shortage of nurses, which has been stressed so much by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and others. I think that the responsible authorities, in conjunction with those who fix the salaries, ought to agree that mental nurses should be paid more than ordinary nurses, in order to attract more into mental nursing. It is the only way in which we shall get them. I understand that there is a much greater shortage of female staff in our mental hospitals than of male staff. We must see that something is done to attract nurses. We cannot make the conditions very attractive in our mental hospitals, so we must pay better salaries.
I stress again the need for better and more provision for those old people who are now taking up beds in the mental hospitals. I hope that as a result of tonight's debate we shall give a message of hope to the parents and other relatives of these people who sometimes think that they are forgotten, and that we shall help to remove a blot on our national life which this causes at the present time.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I venture to intervene in this debate because I have in my constituency both a very large mental deficiency institution


and a mental hospital, and I think that any Member representing a constituency who is brought as closely, as he is inevitably, in touch with this particular problem wishes to take the opportunity of impressing upon the Minister the importance of this very dire problem before the Health Service.
It is perfectly true and, I think, totally right that up to the present we have given priority to the problem of tuberculosis. I realise, as all Members in this House must realise, that that is a very grave scourge for the people of Britain as a whole, but I think that the progress which has been made under both Governments in dealing with that particular problem enables us now to turn to another priority, and the only thing I wish to do tonight is to stake a claim for the mental service to have priority now that very great progress has been made in dealing with the whole problem of tuberculosis. It is perfectly true that there are different factors that have to be taken into consideration in dealing with these two diseases, but I regard the problem of mental deficiency and mental illness generally as being just as great a social evil in many ways as that of tuberculosis.
I should say that it not only affects the patients themselves, but that it has a very great effect upon all those who are brought into close contact with them, particularly in the families. I would be the last person to deny the affection, care and love which is bestowed upon mentally deficient children by their parents in very many cases, and I would pay a personal tribute, as, I am sure, every Member here would do, to those parents who have given this devotion in cases which they must know offer very little hope for the future.
To turn to the particular problem of North-East Essex and the South of England, this particular institution has an establishment of about 1,400 beds. There are at the present time about 1,750 patients in that hospital. The day space that is available is adequate for about 1,250, and when we recently had an epidemic in our neighbourhood the management committee of this institution very properly decided to inform all the authorities concerned that they would be unable to take in any other patients in the immediate future because they felt they had the responsibility of ensuring that

they did not run too great a risk of having an epidemic in the institution, which might indeed have caused very great loss of life as the result of overcrowding.
Therefore we in the part of East Anglia which this institution serves are faced with the problem that there is no accommodation available in the institution which serves us for any additional cases at present. It may be that the management committee will change their policy in due course; that I do not know, but I feel that they are justified in the stand which they have taken.
I understand that there is to be an additional mental institution for the North of England. I know that the problem there is very great indeed, and far be it for us in the South to grudge them the additional accommodation required. But I should like to ask the hon. Lady to say when she replies whether there is any intention or prospect—any hope, if I may put it that way—of any additional facilities in our part of the country.
The truth is that this accommodation cannot be provided on an ad hoc basis. Some derelict country house cannot economically or properly be taken over and adapted to the needs of an institution of this sort. If we are to tackle the problem it must be done thoroughly by the provision of a new institution built specifically for the purpose. I am well aware that this involves considerable cost. I should say, at a rough guess, that in each case it involves an expenditure of about £1 million—[An HON MEMBER: "Much more."]—perhaps more. I realise that the sum of money involved is substantial.
I realise that with the calls there are on the finances of the Health Service it is not possible to provide such institutions to the extent of more than one or two over a period of time. I would, however, press that if the priority is to be given to the problem of mental health it will be tackled, not by the ad hoc provision of accommodation which is both very unsatisfactory and uneconomical for the purpose, but that it will be possible to provide at least a new institution perhaps serving areas which are already served by separate institutions, and that it will take the overflow which exists in almost every part of the country.
I regret that I was unable to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who opened the debate, and I apologise to him. I do know that he referred to the problem of the nursing staff. We have less of a problem of nursing staff now than is apparently true elsewhere, but there is still always a great difficulty in providing the type of staff which is necessary. There are certain things which can be done to help. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary replies she will tell us that improvements in the conditions of service of the nursing staff can be made.
Nobody who has visited an institution of this sort can underestimate the great strain placed upon both male and female staff in looking after difficult cases. Frankly, I do not know how they do it. Whether it is in a mental deficiency institution or a mental hospital, it is something which I could never bring myself to do, and therefore I say all honour to them.
There is a very strong case for additional pay for those responsible for violent cases and particularly difficult cases. I should have thought, for example, that if danger money or whatever it may be called is paid in certain forms of employment there is a particularly good reason for paying it to the members of the nursing service in mental institutions who have to deal with the particularly difficult cases. That might help.
There is another aspect to which I should like to draw the attention of the House very briefly, namely, that in many respects we require only general nursing orderlies—I think that is what they are called—and general nurses for nursing these patients. I understand, and on this point I stand prepared to be corrected, that after their training the standard of the wages they receive is very much below those of staff nurses and staff sisters. I should have thought that there is an argument for increasing that standard rate for the general nurses because a great deal of the burden of this nursing can be undertaken by general nurses as opposed to the highly-trained staff who are difficult to obtain.
There is one other point I should like to bring to the hon. Lady's attention. It

has been the policy of the Board of Control, and, I think, of the Ministry of Health, to increase the number of patients who are released on licence. I realise, and I think all hon. Members will realise, that the decision of whether a patient should be released on licence is a very difficult one for the staff of the hospital or the Board of Control, as the case may be, to make. There is always an element of risk in it. But, an increased number of patients has recently been allowed out on licence from the Royal Eastern Counties Hospital, and that has been a very great success.
The advantages from the point of view of the hospital are obvious. It means that beds or places that might otherwise be occupied are made vacant for more difficult cases. Whereas I would be the last person to suggest that the rules with regard to release on licence should be made too easy, I think there is a strong argument for giving as much licence as possible to those cases which the staff feel deserve it and which they can recommend for that purpose.
I should like to end with one further point. Those Members who have had brought to their notice cases of children in particular—not babies or children of a very young age, but those who are adolescent or even of adult age who are still the responsibility of their parents—cannot be unaware of the immense wear and tear on the minds and physique of the parents who have the responsibility of looking after them. None of us can be unaware of the great anxiety and strain which this involves on the mother or father, and particularly on the mother. I am quite certain that the hon. Lady would have the support of all Members of the House in any action which the Ministry feel it possible to take to deal with a social problem that is so intensely human, and to find a way of relieving those who have the misfortune to be concerned with children who are mentally deficient, and who find the strain too much for them, by increasing the accommodation available in the public institutions of this country.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I want to add my word in this matter, because this is an increasing problem in the County of Northumberland. Mention has been


made of overcrowding. Some time ago I visited a mental institution in Morpeth, and the situation there was much the same as is found in other institutions. In one large ward in which I went, the distance between patients was four feet, and when the night nurse went to look after those patients there was practically no room for her.
This, I think, is a non-party matter. In talking of it we must endeavour to rouse the people of the country. I think that will be agreed on both sides of the House. Some of us can remember when the blind were not as well looked after as they are today. It was the rousing of the public conscience which produced a charter and a standard for the blind. That is what we want in the case of the people whom we are discussing tonight.
The overcrowding in our mental institutions is terrible, and it has an appalling effect. In a way, my greatest sympathy goes to the nurses and the medical superintendents, who have come to the position where they can devote their attention only to the very few who can be returned to normal life, and the cause of this is the stress and strain of overcrowding. In some cases the incurable are mixed up with the borderline cases, and this retards the recovery of the less severe cases.
We all agree that more nurses should be obtained. How ought we to get them? How did we get more miners during the war when we needed coal? We provided special inducements, and the miners came back from insurance and other safe jobs and went into the pits again. We did the same in the case of the engineers. When we needed men, we found them. If we provide proper inducements, I am confident that we shall get more nurses.
It is pathetic when a parent comes to us and asks us if we can do something to get a child into a home. We make inquiries of people who are most anxious to help, but the situation is often hopeless because no place can be found for the child. That is an aspect of our national life to which we should devote special attention.
There is also the case of backward children who do not quite come into the categories that we have been discussing. The Northumberland County Council is very much alive to the situation, and we

have been trying to find schools into which to put the children. So far we have been able to find only one. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made a very interesting and important suggestion about providing a rest from their daily and hourly strain for parents who have such children as these for whom accommodation in homes cannot be found. Remarkable work is being done at the school which we have been able to secure.
The children go there in the mornings and in the afternoons just as if they were going to an ordinary school. This is a tremendous help to parents, and it meets the point of the hon. Member for Cheadle. However, we are unable to find sufficient schools to cater for all the cases, and it seems to me that all hon. Members ought to recognise that this is a national problem and we ought unitedly to demand that, irrespective of expense, our mental institutions should be extended—

Itbeing Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Taylor: Provision should be made for mentally defective cases and for backward children. If that were done we as a nation would have a better conscience. In many cases our people would be happier, and if delay could be abolished and the demands for treatment quickly met, we should restore some of these children to a normal life.

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the very objective manner in which he has raised this subject and also for the contributions made by other Members. I am sorry that I have to curtail other Members—

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: We will have another day on it later.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: —who, I know, were most interested and were anxious to take part. I hope, however, they appreciate that many points have been


raised and I want to give as full a reply as I can.
Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have tried to conceal the gravity of this problem since we have been at the Ministry, and I agree it has called for full-scale national action. The problem of the mental defectives was the main point raised by the hon. Member for Bermondsey but, of course, our problem has been accentuated by the fact that the number of patients has risen from 47,040 in 1949 to 53,066 in 1952, an increase of 6,026. At the same time as those patients have been absorbed, the waiting lists have risen from 5,316 to 9,300. In the mental hospitals there are at the moment 137,039 patients resident, and we regret very much that there is over-crowding at the rate of 14·7 per cent.
If I may deal with the South-Eastern Metropolitan area, which is of particular interest to the hon. Member, I should like to say that it is true that on the mentally defective side, as he says, there are approximately 500 unstaffed beds, which have continued to be unstaffed since the inception of the Health Service. I think it is fair to say that there has been no additional aggravation in the situation which, while still grave, is no worse than it has been. I am not saying we are satisfied by that, but I do not accept the gloomy view of the hon. Member that they are in the imminent position of having to close wards.

Mr. Mellish: Except, of course, that the staff figures are worse than they have ever been.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am coming to the staff figures, but I do not wholly accept what the hon. Member said on that.
During 1953 a net increase of 118 beds has been opened in the South-Eastern Region, and in the country as a whole the net increase is 615 beds. I have no desire to minimise the appalling gravity of this situation, for the fact is that mental health has been the Cinderella of the service. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East (Miss Bacon) referred to the fact that in the 20th century, and eight years after the end of the war, something must be done, but in fairness I must say that, not only was mental

health the Cinderella of the service before 1948, but in the early years of the Health Service the mental side did not get as fair an allocation of the money available to the regional boards as they were entitled to. One of the first steps taken by my right hon. Friend, the then Minister and now Leader of the House, was to insist in the first Estimates for which he was responsible that the regional boards must give a fair allocation to the mental side of their services, and in the two ensuing years there has been a marked increase in the percentage allocated to that side of the hospital service.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I do not want to make a party political point, for I agree it is far too important an issue and that we are all to blame. I think, however, that the hon. Lady will agree that circulars on the same general lines of trying to get the regional hospital boards to pay as much attention as possible to the mental side were sent out. Because of the seemingly quicker returns on the physical treatment side, this other aspect was too often pushed to one side.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Strange though it may seem, my right hon. Friend the Minister in that year was apparently tougher with the regional boards than the right hon. Gentleman who was formerly the Minister, because we certainly achieved the result of a substantial rise in the allocation of the available moneys. The present Minister has taken even more direct action in insisting that the mental side of the Health Service must not only get its full share, but that a contribution must be made towards making up the serious leeway which hon. Members on all sides of the House are agreed exists in the service.
Referring particularly to accommodation, which was the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), the estimates for 1953–54 include schemes for 1,314 new mental deficiency beds and 697 mental hospital beds. In 1954–55 we shall see the building which will come under the "Mental Million," which is the special allocation of £1 million which the Minister has insisted must go, over the normal allocations of the board, to the mental side. Through the programme under that special allocation we hope to provide


1,200 mental deficiency beds and 800 mental hospital beds. In addition to these two programmes, three large centrally financed schemes from other funds for mental deficiency hospitals will provide 800 beds within three years at Greaves Hall and at Balderton, near Newark and at Bradwell Grove, Oxfordshire.
Therefore, within the next three years this should provide 3,000 mental deficiency beds and approximately 1,500 mental hospital beds. I suggest that my right hon. Friend has already taken direct action in this matter, and, as this debate has been conducted on such a high level, and hon. Members on all sides of the House have put the gravity of the situation above any thought of party politics, I hope that the programme which my right hon. Friend has been so determined to see initiated, will receive a warm welcome on all sides of the House.

Mr. Shepherd: Can my hon. Friend give the House an indication of when the backlog will be overtaken? Incidentally, I am sorry that the figure is 9,000 because I though it was only 8,000.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The 3,000 new beds will make a contribution towards it, but it will be some years before all the backlog can be absorbed. I cannot give an estimate beyond the next three years, as to when we can find the opportunity to provide for the 9,000 extra beds. The main problem over and above accommodation is, of course, the problem of the shortage of nurses. On the mental deficiency side, although the number of nurses has increased from 6,812 in 1948 to 7,676 in 1952, it is still well below what we would like to see. Here I would like to endorse the tributes paid on all sides of the House to the unfailing devotion of nurses in mental hospitals who work long hours, make up other shifts when there is a shortage of staff, and whose work and sense of duty is beyond praise.
Special mention was made of Leybourne Grange and Darenth Park. As the hon. Gentleman said, I am familiar with Darenth Park and have visited it frequently, because it is at the centre of my own constituency. I do not wholly accept his figures. I took great pains over them and I have been on to the hospital management committee twice

this week to make sure that they were correct, as they did not tally with the comments which the hon. Gentleman has made.
I understand that in the last 12 months from 30th September, 1952, to 30th September, 1953, in Leybourne Grange there has been a net decrease of four full-time staff and a net increase of three part-time staff. In Darenth Park there has been a decrease of 12 full-time staff and an increase of six part-time staff. Whilst I deplore the loss of full-time staff, the figure of 50 which the hon. Gentleman gave was largely accounted for by elderly members of the staff, some of whom have worked long past 65 in order to help out the hospital. A large proportion of those retirements have been offset by enrolments but not, I regret to say, all of them.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey made an appeal, as did another hon. Member, that there should be no call-up of nurses for National Service. That, of course, is a much wider and more difficult problem and one very largely for the Minister of Labour and National Service. There are, of course, many other claims in other spheres for deferment. I certainly would not like to commit myself, but I will convey the views of hon. Members with regard to that possibility. Student nurses are deferred during training so that they can complete it before they start their National Service.

Mr. Mellish: The figures I gave are those provided by the regional board and the chairman of the health committee. As to the matter of National Service, I hope that the hon. Lady will make representations to the Ministry of Labour.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will report the matter to my right hon. Friend. As to the figures which I gave, they were confirmed by the secretary of that hospital management group and I have no reason to think they are inaccurate.
The figures for Leybourne Grange and Darenth Park for 1945–53 show that in Darenth Park there was an increase of three in the full-time staff and an increase of seven in the part-time staff. In Leybourne Grange there was a decrease of one in the full-time staff and an increase of 26 in the part-time staff. There is


also of course the Medway Central Preliminary Training School which was recently opened, where we have 23 students taking their training and where we hope to increase that figure to the capacity of 40.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey referred to the fact that only lower-grade cases were now being admitted and that the other grades were being refused admission. The case at Darenth Park is certainly not as grave as he pointed out, because to my certain knowledge there is still a very high proportion of higher grade cases there. In fact, several hundreds go out daily on licence to ordinary employment. I am quite sure that there has been no deliberate curtailment of that policy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle mentioned particularly occupation centres. These have increased in number from 100 in 1948 to 237. Since January, 1952, the policy of arranging short stays of a month or two months in mental deficiency hospitals has been in operation and many children, particularly in cases of illness or strain on the parents, have been catered for on this basis. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the institution at Orchard Dene, Liverpool. This is run for the National Association of Parents of Backward Children by the National Association for Mental Health. It is doing excellent work in this direction, which we fully appreciate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) protested that children had to be five before they were admitted. I can only speak for England and Wales. We take them before that age into our mental deficiency institutions. We are fully in support of the policy of having suitable guardians where they can be found and the children boarded out. It is the shortage of guardians and not the lack of desire on our part which is the reason we cannot provide more accommodation for these children.
The point which the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, North-East raised particularly interested me because I have had the privilege of opening two long-stay annexes for the senile where the patients receive watchful care and attention. There are already 1,000 beds for such cases and there is a programme of

more schemes on the way. I agree with the hon. Lady that there are many of these people who have become confused in their old age and that, as far as possible, we should try to keep them out of mental hospitals. That is our policy and it is steadily going on.
The hon. Lady also raised the question of the wages of the staff. Already the student nurse in the mental hospital receives £30 a year more than the student nurse in a general hospital. One hon. Member—I believe the hon. Lady, although I apologise if I attribute it to her incorrectly—suggested that the pay of those who do nursing assistant work in the mental hospital field—and, without their work in the mental hospitals we should be in a very parlous state indeed—should approach more nearly to that of the qualified nurse.
I do not think we can go much further in bridging the gap between those two rates of pay. The female nursing assistant rate starts at £250 a year and the assistant can graduate up to £425 a year. The student nurse starts at £255 and goes to £280, plus her allowances, while the fully registered staff nurse goes from £380 to £480. The maximum for the nursing assistant is £425, therefore, and the maximum for a fully qualified staff nurse is £480. I do not think we can narrow the gap much more between the qualified nurse, who has to do three years' training, and the nursing assistant. I think that margin is pretty narrow as it is.

Miss Bacon: Before the hon. Lady leaves the point of the payment of nurses, although she says that student nurses receive £30 more in mental hospitals—as, of course, I knew—is it not a fact that staff nurses are on the same scale?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: No. The staff nurse in the mental hospital gets £20 more, plus some very valuable superannuation benefits. Every year she serves after twenty years counts double for pension, so that she can retire years before her colleague on the general nursing side and yet draw the same pension. She has very valuable superannuation advantages which go to balance the particular strain of mental nursing. In addition, she has £20 a year above the general rate.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson (St. Pancras, North): Surely the hon. Lady will not suggest for one moment that the present


differentials of £30 and £20 are adequate as an incentive to bring people into the mental nursing field? Clearly they are not. The situation in general nursing is now more or less satisfactory, whereas it is getting progressively worse in the mental nursing field. Will she not at least go on record as saying that in her view this differential ought to be increased in order to bring the recruiting situation into line with that in general nursing?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I promised to deal with the general problem of wages; I will not evade it. I wanted first to answer the suggestion that there was no differential. May I clear that and various other questions away first? I will deal later with the point made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson).
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) asked if there were any plans for his area. Although there is not an entirely new building plan, there are plans for considerable extensions and new wings at South Ockenden in Essex. That will serve the area which he represents.
I turn next to the question of letting people out on licence, and here I would assure hon. Members that there is no lack of desire on our part to let patients out on licence. In fact, it is encouraged and is very greatly used, but with the increasing proportion of low grade patients which we have to accept, the proportion of patients fit to leave on licence is correspondingly lower.
Next I will tell the House what we are doing about staffing. My right hon. Friend has circulated to the various boards advice and guidance on various methods which he thinks should be tried in order to increase the staff for mental nursing. One particular proposal was that greater care should be taken in the selection of student nurses. If applicants to be student nurses do not appear capable of taking the training and fulfilling the duties, it is far better that they should be offered employment as nursing assistants, first, in their own interests, as the frustration and disappointment of having tried something beyond their capabilities turns them right away from nursing altogether and they leave the service; secondly, because we think our limited teaching resources should be directed to those who have a reasonable

chance of qualifying; and thirdly, because nursing assistants, who are invaluable in the mental health service, are required in greater numbers for the routine tasks of the service.
We believe that the excessive use of student nurses for these subordinate nursing tasks is not only a danger to their morale, but a fruitful cause of wastage, and that it limits their training. A certain amount must be part of their training, and that we accept. But we are most anxious, where we can, to get and train people of quality and capability to become fully qualified mental nurses. Then as much as possible of their time may be directed towards their skilled training, and the less responsible jobs which can be done by nursing assistants should be performed by them.
There has been no criticism by hon. Members of the rôle of the nursing assistants. All hon. Members with experience of mental hospitals will know of the immense amount of work which can be done by this grade of assistants. There is a wide sphere of work where nursing assistants have a real job to do.
My right hon. Friend has decided that in the campaign for the recruitment of nurses and nursing assistants into the hospital field, the bulk of the money should be used essentially for publicity and recruitment on the mental nursing side. In co-operation with the Ministry of Labour and National Service there is to be a programme of local campaigns, because it is local people who have to be encouraged and persuaded to help their own local colony. Local campaigns are under way for both mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions. The first one is due in Suffolk a week today and I am to have the pleasure of opening it.
The hon. Gentleman raised a difficult point about the remoteness of many of these hospitals, which makes it doubly difficult to recruit staff. As an inducement to entry into the mental nursing field the proposals of the Standing Mental Health Advisory Committee on the curriculum and methods by which nurses on the general register, after a shorter period of training, can come on the mental nursing register, are in fact under discussion with the General Nursing Council who have been meeting today. There are several experimental schemes under consideration and in operation whereby


nurses may be qualified for admission to both the mental and general parts in a reduced period of time.
We hope thereby to persuade some of those on the general register to enrich their training and enter the mental side. The main object is to make the mental nursing training sufficient for the highest posts in mental nursing. At the moment they need the full double qualification before they can become matrons, but we believe that the reduced time will encourage nurses who aspire to get to the top and become matrons. If it is accepted by the General Nursing Council the reduced period will do much to encourage nurses who aim to become matrons and wish to go into the mental nursing side.
To increase the emphasis we place on the mental nursing side my right hon. Friend has appointed one male and one female mental nursing officer to the Ministry staff where hitherto there has not been such a separate category. Their appointments will take effect from the 16th of this month. Their functions will be advisory and particularly concerned with staff shortages in individual hospitals.
Regarding rates of pay, I always look rather wryly at hon. Members opposite who say we should go over the heads of the Whitley Council and the Nursing Council. As a good trade unionist the hon. Member for Bermondsey knows how much easier that is to say than to do—

Mr. Mellish: I am not surprised that the hon. Lady says that, and it is a fair point; except that in this case I am asking for more. I do not know of any trade union in the country that would object to its members getting more money.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are two sides to joint negotiation and it is not unnatural that the hon. Member says that if we give to one the other side will object. For the amicable future of joint negotiation one has to respect the machinery by which both sides get fair treatment.
Rates of pay are determined by the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council. It is for that Council to decide whether circumstances justify alteration of those rates. It has been urged upon them that

the rates are too low and that some steps should be taken to make the rates more attractive so as to encourage people into the desperately short-staffed mental health service. These matters are under the most active discussion. The Council met in fact, this Tuesday. Both sides are desirous of reaching a conclusion, and I believe that that conclusion will be on lines which will be found favourable by hon. Members opposite. Beyond that, I would not wish to commit myself, for reasons which will be obvious.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can the Minister at any rate say that the Treasury are not holding up the decision?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think I can even say that they are holding it up, because I am not aware that they have yet been asked for the money. It would be unfair to commit them in advance. I am sure that the case for the mental hospitals will be sufficiently strongly put by my right hon. Friend and that it is accepted on all sides of the House. If a firm recommendation came—I cannot commit my right hon. Friend—I would have every hope that as in the past they have agreed to wage increases in the mental health service this would be equally sympathetically received.
Our main object in the campaign which we have for nurses is to have with us not only the desire of the Ministry and the genuine desire of hon. Members of this House; we have to get a new outlook on the part of the public. There has been a great change in the outlook on mental health since the war, and since then many parents and others have had relatives or friends under treatment. This new outlook has to penetrate further into the minds of the public so that parents will no longer deter their children from mental nursing. They will no longer say, "Nursing, if you must, but general nursing and not mental nursing." Parents are not guiltless in deterring their daughters and sons from taking up mental nursing.
We hope that with the new ideas about mental health they will realise that there is as great and fine a vocation in nursing those who have sick minds as in nursing those who have sick bodies. It is a satisfying and great vocation, and demands just as great qualities as are demanded on the physical side in the general hospitals.


Our hope is that the recommendations put forward by my right hon. Friend shall be zealously explored and energetically put into operation in the hospitals.
There has been some criticism of his memorandum by hospital management committees, some of whom say: "We have been doing this for years." All praise to them if they have, but not all hospitals have been doing it. The memorandum was intended for the backward as well as for the forward-thinking management committees. Our object was to improve the accommodation in the hospitals

and the working conditions of the nursing staff, and we must judge the success of the policy by the results which are obtained. I can assure the House that it is the earnest desire of my right hon. Friend to make what contribution he and his Ministry can towards making up the leeway in this problem of accommodation and staffing.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'Clock.